monitoring Trump and relevant contemporary events

You are avoiding things like you always do, Blickers. That is childish.

Come on, Blickers, come on, coldjoint, you both have incredible double standards. You two, and you two are hardly alone in this, are simply totally blinded by the rankest partisanship known to mankind, that of USians.

Not that it will make a difference to you, but campaign things and her daily prayer group is not the extent of her gross negligence. For whatever reason, you forgot about the classified information involved in that You must have been one of her fans.
___________________________________________

Comey said: "although there is evidence of potential violations of the statutes regarding the handling of classified information, our judgement is that no reasonable prosecutor would bring such a case," and then added, "prosecutors necessarily weigh a number of factors before bringing charges. There are obvious considerations, like the strength of the evidence, especially regarding intent. Responsible decisions also consider the context of a person’s actions, and how similar situations have been handled in the past."

He said no reasonable prosecutor would bring such a case. Actually that statement is not valid. Either he lied, or he is unaware of a case from a year ago in which the FBI charged Bryan Nishimura, a Regional Engineer for the U.S. military in Afghanistan with unauthorized removal and retention of classified materials. And he did so without malicious intent. That's what Hillary did.

This is from Section 793 of the U.S. Code:

(f) Whoever, being entrusted with or having lawful possession or control of any document, writing, code book, signal book, sketch, photograph, photographic negative, blueprint, plan, map, model, instrument, appliance, note, or information, relating to the national defense, (1) through gross negligence permits the same to be removed from its proper place of custody or delivered to anyone in violation of his trust, or to be lost, stolen, abstracted, or destroyed, or (2) having knowledge that the same has been illegally removed from its proper place of custody or delivered to anyone in violation of its trust, or lost, or stolen, abstracted, or destroyed, and fails to make prompt report of such loss, theft, abstraction, or destruction to his superior officer—

And here is what Comey said about Hillary Clinton's actions:

"Although we did not find clear evidence that Secretary Clinton or her colleagues intended to violate laws governing the handling of classified information, there is evidence that they were extremely careless in their handling of very sensitive, highly classified information."

"There is evidence to support a conclusion that any reasonable person in Secretary Clinton's position, or in the position of those with whom she was corresponding about those matters, should have known that an unclassified system was no place for that conversation."

"None of these emails should have been on any kind of unclassified system, but their presence is especially concerning because all of these emails were housed on unclassified personal servers not even supported by full-time security staff, like those found at agencies and departments of the United States government -- or even with a commercial email service like Gmail."

"Only a very small number of the emails containing classified information bore markings indicating the presence of classified information. But even if information is not marked 'classified' in an email, participants who know or should know that the subject matter is classified are still obligated to protect it."

"We do assess that hostile actors gained access to the private commercial email accounts of people with whom Secretary Clinton was in regular contact from her personal account. We also assess that Secretary Clinton's use of a personal email domain was both known by a large number of people and readily apparent."

"She also used her personal email extensively while outside the United States, including sending and receiving work-related emails in the territory of sophisticated adversaries. Given that combination of factors, we assess it is possible that hostile actors gained access to Secretary Clinton's personal email account."
________________________________________________

If you have anything else that needs clearing up, don't hesitate to ask.

Since you offered to clear things up: do you know what information was communicated that was classified?

It's public. You can find out if you like.

Go ahead with your discussion of Trump. I was responding to someone who challenged somone else's claim about Clinton's gross negligence that went unpunished, and another's ridiculous claim that Clinton's gross negligence concerned group prayer meetings and personal stuff.

This is what happens to folks like you when you meet uncomfortable truths. The truly sad thing is that this is, as I mentioned, simply an issue of rank partisanship.

They are both deeply evil people being supported by equally evil people.

People who are like death camp guards talking about how one boss or the other has made them work overtime and they are pissed off that they are going to miss their favorite TV show. It's always Americans whining about their tiny little problems, like the death camp guards above.

Yes, there is a time for that, when you have held your criminal governments to account.

Why don't you make a claim about that, and we'll see if it flies. What have you heard?

Oh, I took your offer to clear things up as sincere.

My apologies.

I'll take that as a "no," you will not tell me what was in her emails.

Does this ring a bell?

From Reuters:

In the small fraction of emails made public so far, Reuters has found at least 30 email threads from 2009, representing scores of individual emails, that include what the State Department's own "Classified" stamps now identify as so-called 'foreign government information.' The U.S. government defines this as any information, written or spoken, provided in confidence to U.S. officials by their foreign counterparts.

This sort of information, which the department says Clinton both sent and received in her emails, is the only kind that must be "presumed" classified, in part to protect national security and the integrity of diplomatic interactions, according to U.S. regulations examined by Reuters.

"It's born classified," said J. William Leonard, a former director of the U.S. government's Information Security Oversight Office (ISOO). Leonard was director of ISOO, part of the National Archives and Records Administration, from 2002 until 2008, and worked for both the Bill Clinton and George W. Bush administrations.

"If a foreign minister just told the secretary of state something in confidence, by U.S. rules that is classified at the moment it's in U.S. channels and U.S. possession," he said in a telephone interview, adding that for the State Department to say otherwise was "blowing smoke."

Do you consider your entry in Post: # 6,702,017, as being sincere, maporsche? Was sincerity your actual goal? Was this followup post also sincere?

Oh....how serious. Doesn't really say "what was in her emails" though.

Wonder if you've read the emails and could detail what was held in such high confidence.

More of your sincerity, maporsche?

You said it was public. So go ahead and produce it, and we'll talk about it. So . . . go ahead.

I'll take that as a "no" then Glenn. You have no idea.


Nah, I'm not that bored.

When you said you'd clear things up for everyone I thought I'd ask you to do the legwork there.

One things for SURE....nothing in "clear" here.

Why would this be voted down past the viewing threshold? Is that because the truth is the last thing you want anyone to read about it? Again Glitterbag and Mjack say these are hate groups because the SPLC says so and offer no other proof.
Here is the post that cannot be readily seen.

I am ready to read any quotes that are hateful by the leader of these sites or any hateful literature on these sites, why can't they find any?

Reuters has found at least 30 email threads from 2009, representing scores of individual emails, that include what the State Department's own "Classified" stamps now identify as so-called 'foreign government information.'
_________________________________________________

You want me to go to the State Department and ask them if they'll show me the classified stuff that was on Clinton's email threads?

You're funny.

In general, non-related to Clinton.

1) Do you think the government over-classifies information, under-classifies it, or has the perfect amount of classification?

2) Do you think there exists the possibility that two departments could have disagreements over what should or should not be classified?

She's guilty of gross negligence in the handling of classified information. So your defense of that action is to say it was unrelated to her?

You're getting funnier.