As Iowa nears, Clinton again defends email practices

GOP : Let's throw the kitchen sink at her, and see what sticks !

She said the emails were not classified as secret at the time and should all now be released, adding: “Let the public see them. Let’s move on.” ---- it is said these even edited reveal too much classified information, Hillary knows that and knows they won't be made public!

Clinton said that some emails might have been given upgraded classifications because they linked to newspaper articles about classified matters.------ no, these are claimed to be super top secret.

“That would be retroactively overclassifying a public newspaper article,” she said. -----no, classified information tends the be less secret with age.

Clinton blamed her Republican detractors for politicizing the issue. ---- isn't the non-partisan FBI investigating the compromise of classified information? Yes, maybe the right wing media pushes it to the headlines but left to MSM it would be buried in the back pages.

She was clearly dealing with top secret emails or they wouldn't have been on the government's top secret database and somehow gotten transferred to a nonsecure network. Little wonder there was no official email address, ever... or an unprecedented 5 1/2 absence of a permanent inspector general during Clinton’s entire 2009-2013 term at the State department that would easily have easily uncovered the secret information flowing from classified government networks to the private unprotected system....

LizzFEB. 01, 2016 - 08:33AM JST She was clearly dealing with top secret emails or they wouldn't have been on the government's top secret database and somehow gotten transferred to a nonsecure network.

Why don't you prove your accusation? None of the emails, including those originally created by the spy agencies, had been marked classified at the time they were sent.

From a March 2015 Slate article:

Clinton said that she had used a private email for convenience, "because I thought it would be easier to carry just one device for my work and for my personal emails instead of two."

She is her own worst enemy. There's no doubt the commission is partisan, but that's politics in Washington and goes both ways. She was the Secretary of State and should have known better, and now its come back to bite her in the butt, and some will ponder her seriousness to these laws.

FizzBit FEB. 01, 2016 - 08:56AM JST She is her own worst enemy. There's no doubt the commission is partisan, but that's politics in Washington and goes both ways. She was the Secretary of State and should have known better, and now its come back to bite her in the butt, and some will ponder her seriousness to these laws.

Why don't you prove your accusation? None of the emails, including those originally created by the spy agencies, had been marked classified at the time they were sent.

It is all speculation at this point but that is according to a former Inspector General who has made several assertions in interviews on the case, one of which is that the SoS cannot function without information on classified top secret government databases like SIPRNet. So somehow, highly classified information from SIPRNet, as well as even the super-secure JWICS, jumped from those closed systems to the open system. The question is how and by whom ? Most likely her aides that were summarizing the information, perhaps taking out the most classified parts ? Or directly transferred through a thumb drive ? The case would be over by now if it were clear cut that she never dealt with classified information. At the very least the fact that nothing was ever marked should have started to set off alarms at some point.

Technically perhaps Hillary is correct. The may not have been tagged, stamped, blinking red light classified however the content was. The same as Bill, oral sex is not really sex. If they were not titled classified they were not. Bill lied and eventually proven, Hillary is lying and the truth has been revealed.

LizzFEB. 01, 2016 - 09:01AM JST At the very least the fact that nothing was ever marked should have started to set off alarms at some point.

It's not the recipient responsibility, but a sender.

People are saying that if it's not marked as classified, then it's not classified. That's not true. Whether or not information is classified is determined by its content. It's impossible to get official classifications on all documents at inception because that process would grind communications to a halt. It's common for information to be classified post-inception. You should use good judgement and treat all project-related communications as classified because they may become classified later.

I love these people claiming 'of course she was doing _____'. Amazing how they, a bunch of hacks on the internet, know more than the FBI who is actually investigating the mails.

All your not-classified classified-after-we-sent it points answered with an email indicating Hillary instructed her aides to strip the classification headers off documents, transfer them to nonsecure system, and email them to her.

http://nypost.com/2016/01/24/hillarys-team-copied-intel-off-top-secret-server-to-email/

In another recently released e-mail, Clinton instructed Sullivan to convert a classified document into an unclassified e-mail attachment by scanning it into an unsecured computer and sending it to her without any classified markings. "Turn into nonpaper w no identifying heading and send nonsecure," she ordered.

CrazyJoeFEB. 01, 2016 - 09:09AM JST People are saying that if it's not marked as classified, then it's not classified. That's not true. Whether or not information is classified is determined by its content. It's impossible to get official classifications on all documents at inception because that process would grind communications to a halt. It's common for information to be classified post-inception. You should use good judgement and treat all project-related communications as classified because they may become classified later.

What your saying is the people that receive e-mail have to determine the classification if it's general mail, secret, top secret? How ridiculous.

Clinton’s “Classified Information Nondisclosure Agreement,” or SF-312, makes it clear that “classified information is marked or unmarked classified information, including oral communications.”

http://freebeacon.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/11/HRC-classified-NDA1.pdf

FIRST paragraph, second sentence.

No wiggle room.

“marked or unmarked”

Also "Classified” may not be literally the way classified material is marked (Secret, Top Secret, Special Access Program), saying it while implying the specific quotes is not literally perjurious. She is a lawyer after all.

@sfjp330

I never mentioned anything about the "classified" issue. I was talking about the laws that require government workers to separate official and private e-mails and messages, that's all. Hillary had criticized G Bush when he had his scandal back 2007 for doing the same thing. Take a look at my quote again and it will make more sense now. I don't want Hillary to be President, but I can smell partisan BS a mile away, and this is one. She did break the law by not separating private and official business, but I'm not jumping on the classified BS after the fact.

It takes only one sfjp. Just 1.

sfjp330: What your saying is the people that receive e-mail have to determine the classification if it's general mail, secret, top secret? How ridiculous.

She told her aides to strip off the classification headers and move the document to an unclassified system so they could mail it to her over unsecure channels.

I don't know what you don't understand about that.

You don't need to strip classification headers off documents that haven't been classified yet.

Gee, turbostat, if that were true, the case would be broken wide open! Considering that during the record-breaking, 11- hour hearing (surpassing the Iran-Contra hearings) not a peep was heard about your assertion, we're left with two possibilities: either Hillary's GOP questioners were bumbling fools, or there is not a shred of truth to your claim. (Actually, the third possibility - that both are true - is the most likely.)

Laguna: Considering that during the record-breaking, 11- hour hearing (surpassing the Iran-Contra hearings) not a peep was heard about your assertion,

What record-breaking, 11-hour hearing was that?

The NY Post article is dated January 24th, 2016.

Do you have anything to refute it other than burbling on about congressional sessions that took place some time ago, well before the article was published?

You do know much of the news about the email server is very recent? Otherwise, why would JT be posting it?

The Benghazi hearing, which also took up her private server: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hillary_Clinton_email_controversy#Clinton.27s_testimony_at_public_hearing

You're still not getting the point. The Benghazi hearings are old news. This is new news. Notice that JapanToday has been posting articles about the new news very recently, including the thread you're posting in now. The Benghazi hearings did not consider the information we're reading about now. Are you posting this stuff innocently or did you know all this and are just trying to obfuscate things?

You can lead them to water but you can't make them drink.

You are correct, turbostat, that news of new information has come out; the information itself has not. We shall see whether it (a) damages her presidential bid and (b) was illegal. However, your statement

She told her aides to strip off the classification headers and move the document to an unclassified system so they could mail it to her over unsecure channels

is completely unsupported, which is my point above. Would you care to provide, say, a single link to a credible site that would provide information supporting your assertion?

Laguna is right! Let's see some sources, people! Like Wikipedia, which is a credible site that provides information. Thank you, JapanToday, for ensuring Hillary Clinton is provided a forum for all the irrelevant excuses and dodgy explanations she needs to become the next President of Japan!

It is "I did not inhale" and "I don´t know this woman" all over again.

Yes, all politicians bend the truth, but the Clintons take that to a new level with their arrogance. It is amazing that they still can get away with it. Of course, a 98% democrat voting press corps helps.

the Clintons take that to a new level with their arrogance. It is amazing that they still can get away with it

I agree with you based on the absolutely nothing whatsoever that has come from investigators to show her to be guilty of anything.

I love judging people without the adequate information to do so. I'm glad you do too!

Laguna: However, your statement "She told her aides to strip off the classification headers and move the document to an unclassified system so they could mail it to her over unsecure channels" is completely unsupported, which is my point above. Would you care to provide, say, a single link to a credible site that would provide information supporting your assertion?

From the sentence:

"Turn into nonpaper w no identifying heading and send nonsecure," she ordered.

"Nonsecure" means it WAS secure.

"No identifying heading" means it HAD an identifying heading.

If NY Post is not enough for you, try searching for the phrase "Turn into nonpaper w no identifying heading and send nonsecure" on Google. You'll get 2,750 hits including, on the first returned page of hits, hits from thehill.com, cbsnews.com, cnn.com, politico.com, foxnews.com, washingtontimes.com, and breitbart.com.

turbostat, thanks for the info. According to The Hill: http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/265367-clinton-defends-telling-aid-to-send-data-through-nonsecure-channel

Clinton ... was awaiting a secure fax detailing talking points.... In the email marked June 17, 2011, Clinton told aide Jake Sullivan that she hadn’t yet received a set of talking points. “They say they’ve had issues sending secure fax,” Sullivan says. “They’re working on it.” Responded Clinton: “If they can’t, turn into nonpaper w no identifying heading and send nonsecure.” The State Department release does not make clear what the contents of the email were or whether the information was classified. Clinton contends that she trusted Sullivan to respond appropriately.

Apparently, Clinton was under time pressure for some presentation and, in one of the tens of thousands of emails released, asks for the information to be summarized and sent via email which may or may be classified and which she may well have been about to discuss publicly anyway. Wow. That's something certainly disqualifying for the presidency.

Many in the GOP (and many posters here) are falling into the same trap of so desiring a smoking gun that they leap at the smallest hiccup. From Whitewater to Benghazi, the list of "-gates" the GOP has attempted to attach to her almost span the alphabet. This looks to be no different.

Any chance you'd care to compare her policies to those of her GOP opponents rather than continue unsubstantiated ad hominem attacks?

It's not unsubstantiated at all. You'd buy her story no matter what. These lines directly contradict her excuse:

TS: "Nonsecure" means it WAS secure.

TS: "No identifying heading" means it HAD an identifying heading.

Going strong and no arrests. It's the same story of people accusing Obama of being born in Kenya and forging his BC...pretty much by the same accusers.

Lizz: It is all speculation at this point but

Republicans love speculation in investigations that they created. One might even think they hope to get political mileage just out of the speculation alone, regardless of the outcome.

Clinton has been cleared in Benghazi, the IRS has been cleared in their scandal, Planned Parenthood has been cleared. Now, if you ask Republicans the status of these investigations, how many would know that they have found no wrongdoing in any of them? Not many. But some of the speculation that the right wing media hammered everyone with is probably fresh in their minds.

Mission accomplished.

You'd buy her story no matter what. These lines directly contradict her excuse

Even after providing an alternate possibility, you still condemn her as guilty without a doubt. So your line about buying her story no matter what is ironic, seeing as you apparently would never buy her story no matter what.

It cuts both ways you see.

Thanks for the laugh, SuperLib! Keep promoting the false right/left dichotomy! The IRS was "cleared in their scandal" because the evidence was destroyed (remember? The claim was that "the hard drive crashed" and the FBI couldn't figure out how to retrieve the data...hmmm) and because Lois invoked her Constitutional right to not incriminate herself, so she never testified. Then she retired (a.k.a. fled the scene of the crime). Hillary 2016!

Strangerland: Even after providing an alternate possibility, you still condemn her as guilty without a doubt. So your line about buying her story no matter what is ironic, seeing as you apparently would never buy her story no matter what. It cuts both ways you see.

Except that her story is directly contradicted by what she said in her own email.

I realize there's an alternate reality where "it depends upon what the meaning of the word 'is' is" carries some weight.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j4XT-l-_3y0

Yes, we understand you will condemn her no matter what. That's been established.

That wont be big problem for Hillary today in IOWA.Am curious to see how far young generation,university students,liberals will support Bernie Sanders,and make greatest change in America.Its energy,passion,motivation,and innovation.They wanna change America,and they think they can change the world.If they prove it today,if Sanders wins-i hope so-this will be a beginning of new era,not only will change America,but the whole world as well.All big changes, expectations,and achievements come from America first,then all world follow.i have a big hope,it will happen.

Thing is mishandling official emails aren't the only faux pas in HC's political career. I have never forgiven her for lying to the public about "landing in Bosnia under sniper fire" in the 1990s. What was she thinking?

She eventually admitted she had exaggerated but it was in my opinion far too little far too late.

Strangerland: Yes, we understand you will condemn her no matter what. That's been established.

'No matter what' is pretty weak sauce when there's nothing to the 'what'.

Unless you'd like to state what there is to the 'what'. If you can.

Democrats are about governing; Republicans are about whining if the voters have rejected their controlling the field. Reagan with Iran-Contra, GW Bush with - well, pretty much everything (yellow cake, Plamegate, email scandal) - there were objectively quite serious, perhaps impeachable, offenses, but the Democrats put the good of the country ahead of their own partisan interests and plugged on ahead.

The seemingly inherent ability of recent Republicans to govern is also demonstrated by their inability to campaign on substance. All call for abolishing the ACA; none offer an alternative. All call for cutting taxes on the rich, raising defense spending, and balancing the budget while maintaining with a straight face that the middle class won't be harmed. From Planned Parenthood to same-sex marriage, they pander to the right no matter what their previous convictions and the desires of a vast majority of Americans. Fortunately, the primary season will eventually end, and whatever may be the resulting rough beast, its hour come round at last, slouches towards the general election to be slaughtered, its demise is rather predictable.

From Rep. Darrell Issa, a name you might remember for his Benghazi investigations that turned up nothing, but provided for intense speculation:

"I think the FBI director would like to indict both Huma and Hillary as we speak"

Now let's think about this for a second. He has no ties to the email investigation. He's saying that be thinks the FBI director would love to indict Clinton. Why, because the FBI director said so? Or are you just speculating on what he's thinking? How could it make sense to release that statement either way?

He comes out with this 3 days before the Iowa caucuses. From the same man who ran the Benghazi circus and still pretends to this day that it wasn't politically motivated.

These are the things the GOP does instead of trying to increase their base. It might get them short-term victories, but the 500 lb gorilla in the room of the GOP civil war will have to be dealt with at some point.

Hillary doesn't need all this aggravation, lol

Laguna:

" Democrats are about governing; Republicans are about whining if the voters have rejected their controlling the fieldDemocrats are about governing; Republicans are about whining if the voters have rejected their controlling the field "

I am not American, so do not vote for either. But from what I see, Republicans are about ideas, and often conflicting ideas, so they thave this eternal infighting which costs them election after election. The Demokrats are about winning about all costs, so they consistently circle the wagon, even if they hate each other. Plus they can rely on solid support from the mainstream media, apart from some very minor dissidents. Pretty much an unbeatable sitation.

Republicans are about ideas

Ha ha! Thanks for that one. Their leader, Trump, has a campaign slogan "Make America great again" that might as well double as his platform. On ABC yesterday, asked about his healthcare plans, he had this to say:

Ted Cruz is a total liar.“I am so against Obamacare. I’ve been saying it for two years in my speeches. I’m going to repeal and replace Obamacare. I don’t know even where he gets this. But he’s a liar. ... I want people taken care of, I have a heart. If people have no money, we have to help people, but that doesn’t mean single payer. It means we have to help people. ... We’re going to work with our hospitals, we’re going to work with our doctors. We’ve got to do something. You can’t have a small percentage of our economy — because they’re down and out — have absolutely no protection so they end up dying. We’ll work something out. That doesn’t mean single payer.

http://www.rawstory.com/2016/01/donald-trumps-plan-for-replacing-obamacare-well-work-something-out-so-people-arent-dying/

So, currently, the position of the leading GOP candidate on an issue of such paramount position as healthcare can be counted on the fingers of one hand:"We'll work something out." What a wonderdul idea! Why hasn't anyone else thought of that?

That's something certainly disqualifying for the presidency.

I'll say. It is a felony. Period. Whether the information was actually classified or not or whether Sullivan actually sent it is irrelevant. It was marked and Clinton didn't instruct him to take out the classified information before sending. If there was nothing classified why spend hours trying to send it over a secure fax ? There wouldn't have been the same sense of urgency, she would simply have had her aides look up the unclassified information.

Republicans love speculation in investigations that they created.

It helps to speculate. That's why so many of them play the stock market and do extremely well and it pays.

One might even think they hope to get political mileage just out of the speculation alone, regardless of the outcome.

Maybe they follow the Dems playbook on using RACE for political mileage, as you put it.

Clinton has been cleared in Benghazi, the IRS has been cleared in their scandal,

If you think the FBI closes their cases that easy, you really and truly don't understand at all about how the entire criminal process works.

Planned Parenthood has been cleared.

For now.

Now, if you ask Republicans the status of these investigations, how many would know that they have found no wrongdoing in any of them?

So far

Not many. But some of the speculation that the right wing media hammered everyone with is probably fresh in their minds.

And the hypocrisy liberal games keep going round and round and.....

Mission accomplished.

That's why the State department has to make weekly updates on the deeper scandals that are slowly bring her down, little reminders, little nuggets.

Democrats are about governing;

ROFL! Yeah, and now as a result of that so called style of governing, the people woke up and realized the last 7 years wasn't a lemon, it was a clunker!

Republicans are about whining if the voters have rejected their controlling the field.

Oh, when are they controlling anything, the last 7 years they were so marginalized, particularly the first 3 years where the Dems ran rapid with the check book after bragging they would do a better job than Bush when it comes to wasting money, not only was it a lie, they increased it 3 fold and now we're at $38 Trillion and remember, Obama isn't done printing more money while the middle class is virtually non-existent!

Reagan with Iran-Contra,GW Bush with - well, pretty much everything (yellow cake, Plamegate, email scandal) - there were objectively quite serious, perhaps impeachable, offenses,

Don't forget to throw Obama with everything in from allowing ISIS to flourish like a fresh spring grass meadow, lying about the war in Afghanistan and then there is the lie about not having boots on the ground, but we recently had some special ops captured, but he wants to call them military advisors and brags about ISIS being on the run...well we all knew that was a bunch of horse....

but the Democrats put the good of the country ahead of their own partisan interests and plugged on ahead

I can see it everyday when the crowds flock to Trump. Because the Dems did such a banged up job with the country, the people are so desperate to find a real leader, they run off to a shrewd businessman. Dems are ONLY about ideology, especially this bunch. The sooner they are out, the better the country will off.

Now let's think about this for a second. He has no ties to the email investigation. He's saying that be thinks the FBI director would love to indict Clinton.

I'm pretty sure they would, in all sincerity.

Why, because the FBI director said so? Or are you just speculating on what he's thinking? How could it make sense to release that statement either way?

Just stop, when one of your own is squirming on the hook, speculation is just downright foul and not Kosher, but if the show is on the other foot, you'd guys be banging the drum for impeachment, war crimes, life incarceration. Don't play that partisan game!

He comes out with this 3 days before the Iowa caucuses. From the same man who ran the Benghazi circus and still pretends to this day that it wasn't politically motivated.

Or like when the White House came out with that stupid lie that the reason for the Benghazi attack was based on a video, changed the statement a few days later after she sent that letter to Chealsea and the Egyptian president that it was an Al Qaida attack. And right before.....Obama's reelection campaign, now how convenient is that? Welcome to the world of politics and yes, even Dems **** can stank!

These are the things the GOP does instead of trying to increase their base.

To a point true and at the same time, there are things the Dems need to do to keep the trust of the people and right now, it ain't there.

It might get them short-term victories, but the 500 lb gorilla in the room of the GOP civil war will have to be dealt with at some point.

Hey, the Dems own Blitzkrieg is about to start and they're looking more nervous these days.

" allowing ISIS to flourish" How?

"Republicans are about ideas" As you said that you are not American so you might not realize that the Republicans invented ObamaCare. In fact Trump says he will raise taxes when he becomes president, which means more public healthcare. Now the Republicans don't want to admit that the ideas for ObamaCare originated from them and they have all these crazy ideas for healthcare. Do you also know that Reagan inked 3M green card amnesty for illegals during his office? Yes, you are right. The Republican party are about ideas.

It's fine to say that you don't like Hillary and criticize her all you want- especially her political opponents. But I'm puzzled when her opponents say she should do hard time in a SuperMax prison. There is no felony. The last person in these years to be bona fide busted was Scooter Libby in the GWB WH for outing CIA spies and having their names printed in the paper. Busted, indicted, tried, and convicted. He was disbarred and publicly shamed. But Hillary? No sign of this ever happening. This will go on and on with noting panning out- by the same people who think that Obama forged his BC (a serious felony). Do Liberal haters here still think Obama should be arrested for what you think he did to forge his BC? You have given up and now obsessing a "crime" that was never a crime in the first place.

"The IRS was "cleared in their scandal" because the evidence was destroyed (remember?" Who was arrested over this?

Let's not forget Gen. David Petraeus, who passed along notebooks full of classified information to his mistress so that she could write his biography. Funny thing is that the Pentagon recently decided that this was not serious enough to warrant downgrading his rank.

Who cares? Democrats don't. And the Democratic caucus is going on today. That is what matters. Today. Clinton emails do not.

With Democrats.

So, what is this really about? Oh, that's easy: its about portraying Clinton as dishonest. That what this is about.

The only thing is: Americans like HRC. Republicans (Surprise!) hate her.

In short, there is no email scandal. There is no smoke. There is no fire. The last time Republicans trumped up some stupid conspiracy theory (BENGHAZIIIIIIIIII) , they crashed and burned and actually improved HRC standing with Democrats, Independents and even a few Republicans who could see with their own eyes how stupid, blustering Republican men were trying to pick on a strong, competetant and unruffled HRC.

Republicans are hoping that they can continue sing their song and get people to distrust HRC. It kida worked with Bill, well not really, but that is their playbook. It totally bombed with BENGAZHIIIII!!!!! But if there is one thing we know about the Repbublican slime machine, it just keeps going, and going and going,,,,,

As you said that you are not American

I never said that, not one time. Please don't lie like that.

It's fine to say that you don't like Hillary and criticize her all you want- especially her political opponents. But I'm puzzled when her opponents say she should do hard time in a SuperMax prison.

She should, God willing.

There is no felony.

Having unsecured emails in her possession is a felony, she just hasn't been officially charged.

The last person in these years to be bona fide busted was Scooter Libby in the GWB WH for outing CIA spies and having their names printed in the paper. Busted, indicted, tried, and convicted. He was disbarred and publicly shamed. But Hillary? No sign of this ever happening.

Not yet, but if Sander does get the nomination, that'll do just fine.

This will go on and on with noting panning out- by the same people who think that Obama forged his BC (a serious felony).

You never know.

Do Liberal haters here still think Obama should be arrested for what you think he did to forge his BC? You have given up and now obsessing a "crime" that was never a crime in the first place.

Given up? What in blazes are you talking about, dude?

"The IRS was "cleared in their scandal" because the evidence was destroyed (remember?" Who was arrested over this?

If we get a Republican president in office, that will change and of course with a democratic president overseeing the IRS, there is no way anyone that is close to Obama or could bring him down going to get arrested. Come on now....

Who cares? Democrats don't. And the Democratic caucus is going on today. That is what matters. Today. Clinton emails do not.

Not to progressives, of course not, but to the FBI, a whole different can of worms. I'll trust James Comey before I trust anyone in the White House circle.

So, what is this really about? Oh, that's easy: its about portraying Clinton as dishonest.

Boy, you took the words right out of my mouth!

That what this is about.

When has the lady with the pantsuits every NOT lie about anything? Oh, I forgot, she survived heavy sniper fire, have to cut her some slack.

The only thing is: Americans like HRC.

67% find her untrustworthy. Now I understand why we are in such debt. Liberals are just simply bad at math.

Republicans (Surprise!) hate her.

In short, there is no email scandal. There is no smoke. There is no fire.

You can bellow that out of your chest all day, buddy, but that's not what the FBI is saying, so while the FBI are still investigating her and when they conclude everything and OFFICIALLY call an end to the investigation, then I will listen to that statement, until then, you guys sound like the kid that cried wolf too many times.

The last time Republicans trumped up some stupid conspiracy theory (BENGHAZIIIIIIIIII) , they crashed and burned and actually improved HRC standing with Democrats, Independents and even a few Republicans who could see with their own eyes how stupid, blustering Republican men were trying to pick on a strong, competent and unruffled HRC.

It's funny, everyone of the parents that lost loved ones on that night said Hillary lied, so let me guess, they all got together and they all decided to get Hillary because they simply don't like her and all those families are Republicans trying to get the woman in the pantsuits.

Republicans are hoping that they can continue sing their song and get people to distrust HRC.

Actually, Hillary has been doing a good job of that by her own little self for over 30 years. So kudos to her for being so bold and sneaky.

It kida worked with Bill, well not really, but that is their playbook.

I mean, who cares if Bill ruined more than a dozen women over the last 30 years.

It totally bombed with BENGAZHIIIII!!!!!

You said that already. so far....

But if there is one thing we know about the Republican slime machine, it just keeps going, and going and going,,,,,

True, just like the Dems, only not as boring, stiff and dishonest.

Petraeus got a pass so Hillary should, too? Even Petraeus got fired. But he had the same attorney as Hillary has, maybe Kendall'll get her off.

Hillary should have been fired if caught while employed, should lose access to classified info, should be fined and possibly should face jail time.

James F. Hitselberger, a contract interpreter in Bahrain, was fired the day after his infraction, arrested in Kuwait a few months later after being tricked onto a military base, immediately transported to the US and detained for 54 days, followed by another 8 months under house arrest with ankle bracelet at his aunt's house in N. Virginia, followed by 7 months in home confinement at his own home in Michigan, with ankle bracelet, just for printing two classified documents in view of a master sergeant, placing them in his backpack, and walking out of the secure area. Finally sentenced to time served and a $250 fine. http://fas.org/sgp/jud/hitsel/062414-defsent.pdf

First four google hits for: convictions for mishandling classified data

And all the hits are articles from August, the latest info isn't even popping up yet.

The second hit starts with discussion of an employee from her own State Dept., fired for mishandling a cable marked only "Confidential", for making posts on his blog without consulting with superiors, and for criticizing Hillary and Michelle Bachman in his book.

https://theintercept.com/2015/08/12/hillary-clinton-sanctity-protecting-classified-information/ Hillary Clinton on the Sanctity of Protecting Classified Information - 2015-08-12

http://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2015/08/14/if-your-name-isnt-hillary-the-hammer-for-mishandling-secrets If Your Name Isn't Hillary, the Hammer for Mishandling Secrets - Aug. 14, 2015 - "The double standard is obvious, says a former diplomat pounded by Clinton State Department."

http://www.nationalreview.com/article/422533/hillary-clinton-email-scandal-double-standard Hillary and Bill vs. the ‘Little People’ - "Hillary Clinton Email Scandal Reveals a Different Set of Rules for the Powerful" - August 14, 2015

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2015/08/14/if-hillary-clinton-mishandled-classified-information-heres-what-it-could-mean/ If Hillary Clinton Mishandled Classified Information, Here’s What It Could Mean Legally - Aug. 14, 2015

"I never said that, not one time. Please don't lie like that." Different person I was responding to (read carefully). But we all know Trump will raise taxes (he said this) and there is a great chance that public healthcare will go up as it always has- no one can stop it. I told him that. I also told him that Reagan inked 3M green card amnesty.

Again, the only WH official to be charged in these recent years was Scooter Libby. As soon as Obama or Hillary are charged I will then admit they are criminals. But I can't until this happens. It's not up to the public. It's up to the system.

1/20/17 - "Madame President " !

No, no, no.....madam inmate!

As soon as Obama or Hillary are charged I will then admit they are criminals. But I can't until this happens. It's not up to the public. It's up to the system.

I was never talking about Obama and yes, it's up to the system, so let's see what James Comey will say.

1/20/17 - "Madame President " !

We still have two more months until April.

No, no, no.....madam inmate!

BINGO!

Hillary Clinton, fighting for a strong finish in the Iowa caucuses

Darn it!! Some celebs are getting in on the endorsement of their fav candidates. While checking out other news, I saw Demi Lovato featured with Hillary on the campaign trail. Broke my heart.

Darn it!! Some celebs are getting in on the endorsement of their fav candidates. While checking out other news, I saw Demi Lovato featured with Hillary on the campaign trail. Broke my heart.

Typical double-standards. Money from big donors, corporations and lobbyists are evil and bad, but if Hollyweird injects itself into the political process and hands out big sums of cash, that's perfectly ok? I could give a fig what Sean Penn, DiCaprio, Gwyneth Paltrow, Scarlett Johansson or Mark Ruffalo say and actually, most of Americans don't care. These people are so out of touch from reality. They should stick to their art and that's it.

Well, the latest report is that the sensitive information passed around from Hillary risked American lives! Appalling! Disgraceful! Incredibly selfish to think of convence over security. And we should trust this person with the nuclear access codes! She'll email them to the VP while she chases Bill across the globe while he womanizes.

the latest report is

What latest report?

Ted Cruise? Could he beat Trump?

"I was never talking about Obama and yes, it's up to the system" Yes, but the whole time you thought Obama should be arrested for making a fake BC, but never happened. Now you think Hillary should be arrested for giving secrets to ISIS. Nothing so far and it looks like nothing in the future.

There are all these news reports about Hillary being a felon and no arrest. Just like with Obama, all these new reports about his birth in Kenya, and his fake BC...no arrest for eight long years. I sense a pattern of obsessiveness with the Conservatives.

But if Hillary is arrested then who cares. It could mean Trump as president with higher taxes and more public healthcare.

So it;'s looking like Trump with more government?