Turning The Ballot Box Against Republicans

Could you expand more on something you seem to know nothing about? If you had paid even a little bit of attention to when the Hillary server was the talk of the town or when John Podesta was email fished, he wasn't hacked, then you would know that there are secure systems and unsecured systems. The secure systems are not connected to the internet, they use an internal private network with no links to the outside world. This was the reason so many questioned how Hillarys server was able to receive classified documents/emails when it wasn't connected and couldn't be connected to the secure network.

It wasn't the point of what it contained, the point is that it was not part of the secure network and shouldn't have had access to anything that was on the secure network. 2 different systems with no access between them, that is the point.

These people are bereft of intellectual honesty and they are animated one hundred percent by hatred and tribalism.

You know, like if someone looked at a document on the secured server, then on an unsecured server re-wrote (using typing skills and grammar taught as far back as elementary school) what was there.

You keep coming back to this two different server thing like it has anything related to the Clinton server issue.

Quote:

You know, like if someone looked at a document on the secured server, then on an unsecured server re-wrote (using typing skills and grammar taught as far back as elementary school) what was there.

What you just described is illegal! You can't retype information from the secured network to the unsecured network, that would be a violation if the laws related to secured/classified information. Do you really want to debate something you have no idea about?

This was the reason so many questioned how Hillarys server was able to receive classified documents/emails when it wasn't connected and couldn't be connected to the secure network.

Again...Clinton's server contained a few pieces of classified information, not documents (at least not that I've seen reported).

It wasn't the point of what it contained, the point is that it was not part of the secure network and shouldn't have had access to anything that was on the secure network. 2 different systems with no access between them, that is the point.

My point is that it DIDN'T. No crossover. None. Zero.

What has been reported is that people emailed to Clinton WORDS that when written in a sentence in a specific way, contained classified information.

You know, like if someone looked at a document on the secured server, then on an unsecured server re-wrote (using typing skills and grammar taught as far back as elementary school) what was there.

You keep coming back to this two different server thing like it has anything related to the Clinton server issue.

You're so dense.

What I described is exactly what the FBI reported happened on Clinton's email server. That people were discussing classified information on an unclassified server. No classified documents were sent to Clinton's server.

That is all I'm debating.

Was she allowed to use a private server?
No. As we wrote, the IG report said that it has been department policy since 2005 — four years before Clinton took office — that “normal day-to-day operations” be conducted on government servers. The report noted that the department’s Foreign Affairs Manual was updated in November 2005 to say “it is the Department’s general policy that normal day-to-day operations be conducted on an authorized [automated information system].” The IG made a distinction between occasional use in emergencies and exclusive use of personal email. “Beginning in late 2005 and continuing through 2011, the Department revised the FAM and issued various memoranda specifically discussing the obligation to use Department systems in most circumstances and identifying the risks of not doing so,” the IG report said
Did Clinton seek government approval to use a private server for her personal email account?
No. The IG report said Clinton “had an obligation” to discuss her email system with the department, but it could find “no evidence” that Clinton sought approval for her unusual email arrangement. If she did, the report says her request would have been denied by the bureaus of Diplomatic Security and Information Resource Management. Brian Fallon, a Clinton campaign spokesman, has told us: “It did not occur to her that having it on a personal server could be so distinct that it would be unapproved.”
Did other secretaries of state use personal emails for government business?
The IG report confirmed what we had previously written: Among Clinton’s predecessors, only Colin Powell (Jan. 20, 2001–Jan. 26, 2005) used a personal email account for government business. Madeleine Albright (Jan. 23, 1997–Jan. 20, 2001) did not use email at all, and Condoleezza Rice (Jan. 26, 2005–Jan. 20, 2009) did not use a personal email account to conduct government business, the IG report said. Clinton’s successor, Secretary of State John Kerry, told the inspector general’s office that he “infrequently” used a personal email account for government business “when responding to a sender who emailed him on his personal account.”
No other secretary of state maintained a private server that was used for government business.
Did Clinton have a government email account?
No. The FBI said she declined to have one set up for her.
The State Department’s information technology staff did create two email accounts associated with Clinton that were not used by her. One was used to send mass emails to all State Department employees on her behalf. That was [email protected], and it was not configured to receive emails. The other was [email protected], which was created only to manage Clinton’s Outlook Calendar. That one was not configured to send or receive emails. (See page 10.)

Everyone agrees that it shouldn't have been used (not everyone agrees it was illegal, however). Hillary herself agrees.

Seems like you still care a little bit, even though you said you didn't.

It's ok man, your guy won.

it's the BS you try to push about what was legal vs illegal.