http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/...illary-did

after reading the first paragraph......they should be arrested too....

why you fk'n libs defend an injustice is beyond me....

I'll read the rest, then edit:

edit1: have no clue what florida law requires.....it's hardly the same as sec of suckness

edit2: all are about potential candidates w/o any linking to each of their state's requirements

you created the thread....provide the data to back up your argument (that's a lot of work) or be a lazy journo like the one that wrote the article...

edit3: just like a journo to come with this disclaimer buried past the bs

Quote:Just to be clear about this, I’m not suggesting the Clinton story is irrelevant. On the contrary, legitimate questions have been raised that deserve answers. What’s more, there are some differences between the Clinton story and the circumstances surrounding her Republican critics, most notably the fact that they seemed to operate two email accounts – one governmental, one private – while the former Secretary of State used one.

it's the weakest of journalism.....fk'n morons

edit4: my turn for personal opinion.....rachel maddow is a libtard pos fk bag that represents the 'worst' of all media

edit5: having said all of this.....if a public figure uses email, then all email should be open to the public.....I have zero clue what state by state laws consist of.....at the least (assuming having a public/private accts is legal), the laws in each state should be changed to 'only one'

they are public officials carrying out the will for the masses....it's that simple....

edit6: the private sector monitors employee emails....for a reason sonny....

Kasich isn't on the list. President Kasich has a nice ring.

Thanks. Reaffirmed my notion that all of them aside from Cruz, Paul, Trump, and Carson are non-starters

Sent from my XT1254 using Tapatalk

It's a Republican drive by hit job and it won't work. It is having the effect of bringing down her favorables though which is precisely what these guys wanted. Bruise her up before the general. It's all politics.

It doesn't need defending. It is what it is and reasonable see right through it.

(08-23-2015 10:30 AM)Machiavelli Wrote:  It doesn't need defending. It is what it is and reasonable see right through it.

even that crazy journo admitted they weren't the same in scope....

so yeah, it does need defending in this context based on current law....

you are a teacher, right?

you should know that....

(08-23-2015 10:29 AM)Machiavelli Wrote:  It's a Republican drive by hit job and it won't work. It is having the effect of bringing down her favorables though which is precisely what these guys wanted. Bruise her up before the general. It's all politics.

that's all msnbc has.....how's their veiwershite ratings?

zero fact catering to the de facto idiots....

you should be ashamed to represent that faction.....

They had classified information on unsecured private servers?

While I believe the private emails should be for personal use only and that what they did is not appropriate, none of them are the Secretary of State and as far as I can tell by this article.... none of them were putting "classified" material on their personal accounts that would clearly be a punishable crime. I'm not sure the HRC did either...but...that possibility certainly exists.

Answer me this. Can you send classified information on a .gov account? I'll save you the trouble. You can't. None of these emails were marked classified and she would have the exact same legal problems if they were. Classified information can't be e-mailed on government servers. Classified information has to remain in a closed-loop system, and .gov e-mail accounts are not part of that system. The legal issue regarding Hillary's e-mail containing classified information would be the exact same if she had been using an official government e-mail address.


It's absolutely amazing the stuff the right can conflate and blow up to make an issue. You guys should be smarter than this but every time red meat is thrown out a window you guys chase it down like rabid dogs. This will go nowhere.

Except to lower her favorables and raise her u favorables. It works.

(08-23-2015 11:08 AM)Machiavelli Wrote:  Answer me this. Can you send classified information on a .gov account? I'll save you the trouble. You can't. None of these emails were marked classified and she would have the exact same legal problems if they were. Classified information can't be e-mailed on government servers. Classified information has to remain in a closed-loop system, and .gov e-mail accounts are not part of that system. The legal issue regarding Hillary's e-mail containing classified information would be the exact same if she had been using an official government e-mail address.


It's absolutely amazing the stuff the right can conflate and blow up to make an issue. You guys should be smarter than this but every time red meat is thrown out a window you guys chase it down like rabid dogs. This will go nowhere.

so, If I understand you and trust you (since you provide no data to back up the stance), all classified email is transmitted on a server that is controlled with a .xxx....therefore it's a non-issue?

if that is the case, why has it not been represented (as such) to date?

I don't watch the news for these reasons.

I don't have a clue about the inner workings.

from the writings I have read, it appears that what you are saying is incorrect.

(08-23-2015 11:08 AM)Machiavelli Wrote:  Answer me this. Can you send classified information on a .gov account? I'll save you the trouble. You can't. None of these emails were marked classified and she would have the exact same legal problems if they were. Classified information can't be e-mailed on government servers. Classified information has to remain in a closed-loop system, and .gov e-mail accounts are not part of that system. The legal issue regarding Hillary's e-mail containing classified information would be the exact same if she had been using an official government e-mail address.


It's absolutely amazing the stuff the right can conflate and blow up to make an issue. You guys should be smarter than this but every time red meat is thrown out a window you guys chase it down like rabid dogs. This will go nowhere.

That is ******* BS. Are you really serious with that crap? Are you telling me it's impossible to re-type information into an unclassified system. We have security violations on a consistent basis because idiots "accidentally" do just that. And you're telling me that aides won't purposely re-type information WITHOUT classification markings in order to get it to Clinton as fast as possible because she refuses to use gov't systems? Give a f'n break.

(08-23-2015 11:25 AM)Pyrizzo Wrote:  

(08-23-2015 11:08 AM)Machiavelli Wrote:  Answer me this. Can you send classified information on a .gov account? I'll save you the trouble. You can't. None of these emails were marked classified and she would have the exact same legal problems if they were. Classified information can't be e-mailed on government servers. Classified information has to remain in a closed-loop system, and .gov e-mail accounts are not part of that system. The legal issue regarding Hillary's e-mail containing classified information would be the exact same if she had been using an official government e-mail address.


It's absolutely amazing the stuff the right can conflate and blow up to make an issue. You guys should be smarter than this but every time red meat is thrown out a window you guys chase it down like rabid dogs. This will go nowhere.

That is ******* BS. Are you really serious with that crap? Are you telling me it's impossible to re-type information into an unclassified system. We have security violations on a consistent basis because idiots "accidentally" do just that. And you're telling me that aides won't purposely re-type information WITHOUT classification markings in order to get it to Clinton as fast as possible because she refuses to use gov't systems? Give a f'n break.

that's one

(08-23-2015 10:12 AM)Machiavelli Wrote:  http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/...illary-did

Employees of states not the Federal Government and certainly not Secretary of State. Hillary is a criminal.

(08-23-2015 11:29 AM)stinkfist Wrote:  

(08-23-2015 11:25 AM)Pyrizzo Wrote:  

(08-23-2015 11:08 AM)Machiavelli Wrote:  Answer me this. Can you send classified information on a .gov account? I'll save you the trouble. You can't. None of these emails were marked classified and she would have the exact same legal problems if they were. Classified information can't be e-mailed on government servers. Classified information has to remain in a closed-loop system, and .gov e-mail accounts are not part of that system. The legal issue regarding Hillary's e-mail containing classified information would be the exact same if she had been using an official government e-mail address.


It's absolutely amazing the stuff the right can conflate and blow up to make an issue. You guys should be smarter than this but every time red meat is thrown out a window you guys chase it down like rabid dogs. This will go nowhere.

That is ******* BS. Are you really serious with that crap? Are you telling me it's impossible to re-type information into an unclassified system. We have security violations on a consistent basis because idiots "accidentally" do just that. And you're telling me that aides won't purposely re-type information WITHOUT classification markings in order to get it to Clinton as fast as possible because she refuses to use gov't systems? Give a f'n break.

that's one

I'm a data transfer authority and have served as a special security representative. Everything Mach is saying is pure crap, especially considering he has no experience to know what the hell he's talking about.

edit: Based on my experience Clinton should be doing time in Leavenworth for what she did, there are common people in there for purposely mishandling classified information putting national security at risk and this case is no different.

(08-23-2015 10:29 AM)Machiavelli Wrote:  It's a Republican drive by hit job and it won't work. It is having the effect of bringing down her favorables though which is precisely what these guys wanted. Bruise her up before the general. It's all politics.

Exactly. Chipping away that's all they are doing.

(08-23-2015 11:40 AM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(08-23-2015 10:29 AM)Machiavelli Wrote:  It's a Republican drive by hit job and it won't work. It is having the effect of bringing down her favorables though which is precisely what these guys wanted. Bruise her up before the general. It's all politics.

Exactly. Chipping away that's all they are doing.

Republicans are taking advantage of her gross negligence and using it for their own benefit. Just because they are doing it does not take away from Clinton's criminal behavior regarding her handling of classified information.

(08-23-2015 11:43 AM)Pyrizzo Wrote:  

(08-23-2015 11:40 AM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(08-23-2015 10:29 AM)Machiavelli Wrote:  It's a Republican drive by hit job and it won't work. It is having the effect of bringing down her favorables though which is precisely what these guys wanted. Bruise her up before the general. It's all politics.

Exactly. Chipping away that's all they are doing.

Republicans are taking advantage of her gross negligence and using it for their own benefit. Just because they are doing it does not take away from Clinton's criminal behavior regarding her handling of classified information.

What gross negligence? Be specific.