Hillary Clinton is honest and trustworthy

[Kinser79]

(05-26-2016, 08:55 PM)playwrite Wrote: Let me just hit the highlights of your idiocy -

Oh this should be good. Someone who demonstrates no connection with reality is going to correct my idiocy. What is next will he pay me with some leprechaun gold too?

Quote:- Most of your confusion comes from a basic misunderstanding of how email works.  YOU CAN"T CONTROL WHAT PEOPLE SEND YOU.  You can filter it, but you cannot stop people sending you emails.

I believe that Ive said that about 21 times three posts back and several more in my previous post. Like I said, I'm no IT expert but I certainly know how to read Playdude. And ability you seem to lack. But then again you only emotionally respond to posts and nothing is quite as triggering as a homosexual negro who doesn't think the sun shines out of the Democratic Party's ass.

 

Quote: It doesn't matter if you have an address on Hotmail like other SoSs or on your own server like Clinton or on the proven leak-like-a-sieve .state.gov site --- you can't control what people send you.   You seem to have accepted this, so let's move on.

The Federal Government seems to think that where the Secretary of State receives emails matters. If they didn't there wouldn't be anything for the FBI to investigate. The FBI does try to pretend it is is above the political fray even if everyone knows better.

Quote:   --- Oh, by the way, here's one hit on a Google search -

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/state-depart...shut-down/

Quote:State Department email system hacked, shut down

    ---- you know a lot of ignorance can be fixed with just take a couple minutes of Googling; you should try it. 

A lot of ignorance can be fixed with a few seconds of reading. The server that was hacked contained only non classified information. Anything the hackers could have possibly gotten they could have gotten far more easily through a freedom of information request.

As for googling things, I don't seem to think you understand how debate works. When you offer up a proposition--which is what you're doing here--you need to provide evidence it isn't incumbent on those who take the contrary position to present your evidence for you. 

Quote:- There is no evidence as yet that she sent any email with any classified information, marked or not.  Dufus, the IG review was about the State Department meeting record preservation and they found fault under the last 6 SoSs, not just Clinton's term.

The record preservation, or lack of it, under previous Secretaries of State is not at issue when the question is HRC's honesty and trustworthiness. Maybe in your world it is perfectly acceptable for someone to rob a bank because they come from six previous generations of bank robbers. But as has been exposed previously you simply do not live in reality.

Quote:  It's the FBI investigation that is looking at the handling of classified information, and unless you're going to claim you work on that FBI team you don't know jackshXt.

And the FBI will find it. As for not knowing jackshit, that would be you since you seem to expect the top diplomat in the country to not send and receive classified information. If anything the extraordinary claim that requires extraordinary evidence is that there is not classified information on that server.

Quote:  And again, for criminality, they would have to show intention to purposefully release;

Okay since you have a problem with understanding intention, let us assume that there is classified information on this server, and let us assume that HRC is the one who put it there. Either A she put it on this server which has encryption security far below that of your average dating website because she is incompetent or she did it out of malice. Personally I don't care which because both speak to unfitness to be President. Also fortunately the laws concerning the handling of classified information don't care about intent either.

Quote: even you can't come up with any credible intentionally. 

And I don't need to. To convict someone of murder a motive is not necessary, just the evidence that someone did in fact commit murder.

Quote: And unless the government has a time machine, material that could not be classified at the time, can not be the basis for a complaint that classified information was released at that time.  So, WTF, are you talking about?

Again, idiot, As I've said several times those who handle classified information, which I would assume include the Secretary of State if they'll let a 19 year old kid handle classified information (that would be me after basic training and submarine school) though I do admit the Pentagon does a much better job at training those who handle said classified information than State apparently does, is required to treat anything that looks like it might be classified, whether marked or not, including oral communications as if it were classified.

I'll give you an example that could conceivably be used for the Department of State (since it is that department we're talking about):

A communication is made to the Secretary of State via (oral communication, written letter, or email) that Country X is doing Y with it's military and that Country Z wants the US to initiate sanctions. Naturally of course the initiation of sanctions being leaked to the press or to Country X before they are implemented would be dangerous. But this communique has no classification marking. So is it classified?

Anyone with any training whatsoever in handling classified information (which I assume would include HRC since it seems that she attended at least one weekend seminar according to my Daily Caller source) knows that they should treat that information as if it is classified even though it bears no stamps or any other paraphernalia associated with being classified. It is by its nature understood to be classified until it isn't.

Quote:- You are no more a commie, or even a Left leaner, than Classic Xer; no one sucking on what the Talking Yam is spraying could be.  Give up the commie shtick, you're not fooling anyone.

Good to know you don't understand what the word former means. I'm not terribly surprised though.