When will Hillary Clinton give up her candidacy ?

LOL!! Still consider what Clinton said as proof of anything??? That's hilarious.

Look around. You're standing in the stupid corner with a few A2K idiots.

Nate Silver; http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/did-the-fbi-end-clintons-email-problems-or-make-them-worse/

Nobody believes her.

Attention!

ELEVEN DAYS TO TRUMPNADO

Also, let me just express my personal certainty that Roger Ailes simply cannot be guilty of the sexual harassment charges. Is there a human alive with greater integrity and honesty and respect for women that Roger? I don't think so.

Ailes trudges over to the bad boy corner with sexual predators like Bill Clinton.

Nobody could have predicted this. Nobody. It is so unlike prior behavior. Unprecedented, really.

The New York Times reports that Republicans have plans to keep attacking and questioning Comey’s findings for weeks or even months http://nyti.ms/29x06fj

Who is only considering what Clinton said. I am relying on the State Department and the FBI's lack of charges.

Trying to reason some folk out of their Clinton derangement is like trying to talk a fat kid out of a doughnut.

Another piece of evidence suggesting that Paul Ryan is a rational, careful, serious man who cares deeply for the nation and its citizens and who can place those values above shallow partisan urges...

He is asking the head of national intelligence to withhold classified information from Hillary Clinton but makes no such request regarding Donald ******* Trump.

Now that's a rational, careful and serious individual.

Far, far easier to achieve the latter.

Believe Hillary Clinton or not, I simply DO NOT CARE ABOUT HER GODDAMN EMAILS.

Anything sent over email can be hacked. The (secure?) State Department has been hacked. The FBI has been hacked. The CIA has been hacked. The NSA has been hacked. The Defense Department has been hacked. Sony was even hacked (and I trust private corporate security much more than government security). Nothing of importance should be sent over email.

Therefore, I don't care about her emails. If she was selling state secrets or giving them to a reporter to undermine something/someone, then that's a different story. She was just using email in the course of her substantial job. 52 email chains out of 50,000 contained something marked with some level of classification...not a big ******* deal!

Quote Woiyo:


She was careless with government Emails. For this, you want to hang her. But the guy she's running against wants to cut off defense to Europe and Asia, letting them be subject to military pressure from Russia and China. Check out this video, especially from the 45 second mark on, where Trump is talking essentially about doing away with NATO only he tries to put it like he's being tough with our allies.



Elect Trump, wait three years and watch the Russian tanks roll into Paris. If you are concerned about national security, Hillary is the ONLY one to vote for. She will preserve NATO and does not regard Vladimir Putin as a real swell guy that she has a special connection to, like Trump does.

Comey: Petraeus did not get away with less, what he did was far worse than this case.

I was in the Army. I was only a lowly NCO, but my first MOS (military occupational specialty, a.k.a. my job) was 29Y - Satcom repairer. It required a top secret clearance. Long story short, my admittedly limited experience with the US government's general handling of classified correspondence was that it was haphazard. The dawning of digital email, while it may have seemed to be the perfect way to streamline and organize, wasn't handled much better. Maybe it got miraculously better when Clinton was in the state department, but I seriously doubt it. What do I mean by haphazard? Two things jumped out at me. There were far too many documents marked 'classified' that didn't need to be. And they gave too many people 'secret' and 'top secret' clearances.

For this reason, it is FAR easier for me to believe that Clinton was "careless" in her handling of classified information - simply because, for all their blustering, the US federal government produces some of the biggest cluster-**** bureaucracies ever, and their documentation reflects it.

It's easier to believe that, than... What is it exactly they are accusing her of? I don't think they even know. I don't think they are saying she intentionally shared classified materials with unauthorized individuals (like Petraeus did). They make so much noise and spend so much money and time, but what crime have they actually accused her of?

Of course this is the biggest problem. We have people in their 50's-70's running most of government. People who couldn't figure out their VCR's and can't currently figure out their smartphones (most of the people bitching can't work their smartphone either).

It's funny, most of the time people bitch about how inept the government is and how it's so outdated in terms of voting and even getting your license at the DMV.....but with the state department (in this case only I imagine) the expectations are greater than you expect with your doctor or bank.



She didn't do anything to accuse her of. She wasn't selling secrets. She wasn't sharing stuff with reporters. She wasn't doing anything with the classified email other than sending it to people who were allowed to see it. And she only did that 0.2% of the time.

Quote maporsche:


This is it, in a nutshell. That's why the last five Sec'ys of State have all broken the rules of Emailing-they were not only out of school, but well into their forties before they had any need to deal with a computer or digital information systems at all. And they're talking about jail for this? Unbelievable.

When Hillary Clinton was in school, this is what computers looked like:

This really has nothing to do with national security. It is all about trying to degrade Hillary's reputation on the hope of electoral consequences (keep their base angry and trying to keep Dem voters or possible voters away from the polls).

And they will continue as they are now, possibly or likely even pushing for impeachment a year up the road. They will continue trying to obstruct Hillary's policies just as they've done with Obama. They will continue seeking to foment distrust and disaffection with government. Because if government can be seen, by majorities of citizens, as helpful and essential in improving their lives, then the fundamental rationale of modern conservatism (government isn't the solution, it is the problem) will be shown to be both extremely cruel and a very big lie.


This is the style of modern conservatism in America.

As a matter of fact I do indeed know a lot about networks. In fact I know a lot about servers, storage and networks, it's what I do for a living. When I was in the military I was a Chinook mechanic and we had to use the computer and network systems, and they had labels all over the computers/laptops and printers/copiers about what level of information could be used or transmitted on these systems. It's the reason why I ask how the information got from the network that carries the clearance level information to a public network which Hillary's server worked on. The govt would not have given her clearance for the server to be on the secured network.

So maybe you can explain how information got from the secured network to the public network?

Have you been following this? It's all about Emails. Somebody sends an Email to Hillary's Email address, which is on a different server, and Hillary sends the Email to someone on the government's server. Incidentally, nobody has accused Hillary of sending an Email with information to a person who shouldn't have it, which is where the real danger is.

That is pretty easy.

The CIA considers all info on drones to be classified.
The New York Times published a story on drones using anonymous sources.
Clinton and others at State discussed that story including emailing a copy of the story.

The CIA classified that email trail as secret since it discussed drones.

This has been known for months.