Hillary's email scandal will never go away

Yeah, I know it's hard for the Hillary haters. Hell, look at the title of this thread. It will never go away, no matter what. They won't let it. And for all of us who keep saying "What was that crime she committed with her emails, again?" Well, they'll just label us lowdown apologists, and on to the next email "breaking news".

It's irrational to me, really.

I'll vote for either Bernie or Hillary (they'll both be basically the same president as far as actual governance goes; not necessarily their ideals), I just feel that Hillary has a better shot at winning the general election.

Huh. I don't really remember you being Democratic or Liberal.

Lotsa smoke and no fire. Where's the beef?

My entire voting history is Bush in 2000, Kerry in 2004, Obama in 2008 and 2012.

I could see myself voting for Kasich this year, maybe even Paul, but no way they get the nod. But no way in hell could I vote for Trump/Cruz/Rubio.

Where's the smoke? I still haven't seen any.

Lots of people yelling that the forest is burning down though...just no actual evidence of any fire.

What was General Petraeus accused of doing?

You mean this?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Petraeus_scandal

The Petraeus scandal is a series of events that garnered strong media attention when an extramarital affair between retired four-star general David Petraeus, then Director of the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), and Paula Broadwell became public information. Petraeus had chosen Broadwell to be his official biographer. She co-authored All In: The Education of General David Petraeus, his biography, when Petraeus was the International Security Assistance Force commander.[1][2] On November 9, 2012, she was reported to have been involved in the extramarital affair with Petraeus that triggered his resignation as Director of the Central Intelligence Agency when it was discovered by the FBI.

After being briefed on November 8, President Obama summoned Petraeus to the White House, where Petraeus offered his resignation.[60] After taking some time to consider, Obama chose not to suspend Petraeus but accepted the resignation on November 9.[61][62][63] Petraeus cited the affair when announcing that same day that he would be resigning as CIA Director.

If you can read this article, which details some of what Patraeus did with his mistress and classified information, and then compare what he was proven to have done to what we know of the 22 Clinton emails and the secured home server that was in her basement....well I'll be impressed.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2016/01/30/pentagon-not-dock-petraeus-star/79564214/

Well, there is this one small bit...



Pretty much apples to apples. Will Hillary agree to plead guilty as well?

I suppose that depends on if she knowingly and unlawfully removed and retained then classified materials as unauthorized locations.

Regardless, actively giving classified materials to a journalist that you're sleeping with is FAR different than what Clinton did. And you know it.

Petraeus knowingly and with intent gave classified documents to his biographer who did not have security clearance.

You are alleging that Hillary, who had security clearance, was given classified by others that had security clearance. The only issue you have shown is that the alleged classified info was passed on a non secure system. No one without security clearance was knowingly and with intent given classified info.

Do you see a difference between the 2? I do. Patreaus met the knowingly and with intent part of the law.

Not even close to apples to apples.

Patraeus knowing moved classified material marked classified to his home. Clinton may have been sent classified info that wasn't marked as such without her knowledge that it was classified. She fails to meet the knowingly and with intent part of the law.

You seem to have ignored the answer from McGentrix.

One of the reasons for requiring government government employees (Including the Secretary of State who is, after all, an employee of the federal government and not a feudal lord with sovereign powers of her own) to use government servers, is that they are more secure than private servers.

Now we all have seen that some government servers are not all that secure, but I've not seen a single person suggest that Clinton's server was more secure than the admittedly vulnerable government servers, so if the Chinese, Russians and North Koreans have the ability to hack government servers, getting into Clinton's would have been child's play for them. As former Secretary of Defense Gates recently commented, if the Pentagon's server are attacked literally thousands of time a day, there's an excellent chance that Clinton's was hacked.

There are reports that intelligence officials have indicated that her e-mails contained information that was at the highest level of secrecy, and was the sort of stuff that if revealed to our enemies could easily result in the compromise of important operations and the covers of clandestine agents...who might be killed as a result of the revelation.

Neither the hackers nor the feds are likely to ever admit that her server was hacked, so we probably will never know. The government knows or will know once any operation they can't save or any operative they can't bring in or protect starts falling apart or being killed. We won't learn about that either if for no other reason than the stuff is super-secret.

You can choose to believe that these reports are part of a vast right-wing conspiracy, but certainly the possibility, alone, that they are accurate indicates this is potentially a far more serious issue than your flip response would suggest.

Another reason for requiring the use of the government server is that any e-mail sent or received by the Secretary of State, which involves the business of government, belongs to the people of the US, not the Secretary of State. The Secretary isn't free to decide what e-mail the people get to keep and what can be tossed. This is no small deal either, but I suspect you're prepared to dismiss it.

No one in the government is above the rules and regulations. They don't (or at least certainly shouldn't) get to contravene them for their personal convenience or their political ambitions. If Clinton did so, this in and of itself is a big deal, but if you don't care about the revealing of super-secret information to our enemies, then you are certainly not going to care about breaking a few pesky rules.

The argument that has often been made that other Cabinet members and even other Secretaries of State have done "the same thing." This isn't true but even if it were, as someone famously said, "What difference does it make?"

Should you ever find yourself charged with a crime, try telling a jury or judge that it doesn't matter because other people have done it too. If your mother gets to talk to you after you offer that as a defense, she may very well pinch you with some force and ask you "If everyone jumped of the Empire State Building, would you do it too?"

If Hillary's server was hacked without her knowledge how did she violate the law that requires she knowingly provide someone with classified info? Not being careful with it is not the same thing as handing it over to someone.

And if she was careless with classified info she would have had training and a possible reprimand from superiors. She is no longer employed there so they can't exactly tell her to not do it again. You insist she be treated the same as everyone else but you don't want that to really happen, do you?

State Department policies on handling classified information and response to not doing it..

http://www.state.gov/documents/organization/88405.pdf

First instance results in a written letter of warning to the employee.

Of course it is! Have you never heard of thought crimes? Oh wait --- different country, different reality.

She knowingly gave her personal e-mail address to others in her employ who were dumb enough to send sensitive info there. That's the BEST excuse one could provide.

Either way, she is responsible for their actions and as usual will lie and blame others for her mis-deeds.

She can never be trusted.

Yet, you defend her ...... amazing!!!

She is responsible for what people send her? So if someone sends you an email with classified information we can expect you would accept being arrested, tried, convicted and sentenced to life imprisonment?

You are absolutely nutty woiyo. No court in the country would accept your argument about a crime.

I'm not sure it's quite as black and white as your reply suggests.

When it comes to espionage and top secret documents the laws can be a bit draconian so as to assure information vital to the nation's security is not passed on to our enemies.

The following link doesn't answer the question, but it suggests a different level of jurisprudence when the military is involved and the military and intelligence agencies are similar in many ways.

https://www.quora.com/Under-U-S-law-if-I-tell-somebody-to-commit-a-crime-and-they-dont-am-I-guilty-of-anything