US Judge: Clinton may be ordered to testify in records case - Polidicks

[QUOTE=proboardslol;50258785]Right so it sounds like a federal records case, not a private server thing.[/QUOTE] Are you dense? If she had used her government email, this wouldn't be a problem. The fact that she used a private email is the problem, how are you not understanding this???? Like, what she did was made illegal after she left office. Obviously you can not charge her with that law, but this was obviously a big enough issue to where they had to straight up make it ILLEGAL. [quote=Politifact] In Clinton’s defense, we should note that it was only after Clinton left the State Department, that the National Archives issued a recommendation that government employees should avoid conducting official business on personal emails (though they noted there might be extenuating circumstances such as an emergency that require it). Additionally, in 2014, President Barack Obama signed changes to the Federal Records Act that explicitly said federal officials can only use personal email addresses if they also copy or send the emails to their official account.[/quote]

[QUOTE=proboardslol;50258805]Do you have a source?[/QUOTE] [url]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Classified_information_in_the_United_States#Protecting_classified_information[/url] [quote]One of the reasons for classifying state secrets into sensitivity levels is to allow the level of protection to be tailored to risk. The U.S. government specifies in some detail the procedures for protecting classified information. [b]The rooms or buildings where classified material is stored or handled must have a facility clearance at the same level as the most sensitive material to be handled.[/b] Good quality commercial physical security standards generally suffice for lower levels of classification; at the highest levels, people sometimes have to work in rooms designed like bank vaults (see Sensitive Compartmented Information Facility – SCIF).[/quote] Unclassified server + Top Secret information = HUGE security violation. Telling her staffers to strip the classification headers (!!!) from the documents and send them through an unclassified network is not only another security breach, it clearly demonstrates that she knew exactly what she was doing.

[QUOTE=bdd458;50258836]Are you dense? If she had used her government email, this wouldn't be a problem. The fact that she used a private email is the problem, how are you not understanding this???? Like, what she did was made illegal after she left office. Obviously you can not charge her with that law, but this was obviously a big enough issue to where they had to straight up make it ILLEGAL.[/QUOTE] Right, I understand that the issue is because she's using a private email. However, the issue is not that using a private email is illegal, the issue is she didn't go through proper protocol to catalog and store those emails for government use. Had she done that, nobody would've cared. This isn't about the security of the server, and from what I've read, experts have examined it and determined that nobody has even attempted to hack it, so the issue isn't that classified info was at risk, just that she didn't follow the proper procedures for [I]record-keeping[/I]. People are missing the fact that this isn't about security, but about Clinton blatantly trying to circumvent FOIA requests. But no, saying "INSECURE SERVER" is an easier soundbyte. This is just Benghazi again

[QUOTE=proboardslol;50258871]Right, I understand that the issue is because she's using a private email. However, the issue is not that using a private email is illegal, the issue is she didn't go through proper protocol to catalog and store those emails for government use. Had she done that, nobody would've cared. This isn't about the security of the server, and from what I've read, experts have examined it and determined that nobody has even attempted to hack it, so the issue isn't that classified info was at risk, just that she didn't follow the proper procedures for [I]record-keeping[/I]. People are missing the fact that this isn't about security, but about Clinton blatantly trying to circumvent FOIA requests. But no, saying "INSECURE SERVER" is an easier soundbyte. This is just Benghazi again[/QUOTE] sending classified info on an unsecured server is a big deal bub, and is illegal. the FOIA issue is just another layer to it. soundbyte my ass.

[QUOTE=proboardslol;50258399]Lmao serial rape apologist k[/QUOTE] [url]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Juanita_Broaddrick[/url]

[QUOTE=proboardslol;50258871]Right, I understand that the issue is because she's using a private email. However, the issue is not that using a private email is illegal, the issue is she didn't go through proper protocol to catalog and store those emails for government use. Had she done that, nobody would've cared. This isn't about the security of the server, and from what I've read, experts have examined it and determined that nobody has even attempted to hack it, so the issue isn't that classified info was at risk, just that she didn't follow the proper procedures for [I]record-keeping[/I]. People are missing the fact that this isn't about security, but about Clinton blatantly trying to circumvent FOIA requests. But no, saying "INSECURE SERVER" is an easier soundbyte. This is just Benghazi again[/QUOTE] why are you trying so desperately to find some excuse for this not being massively illegal, I mean trying to pretend this was just some harmless goof when literally anyone else other than a former first lady with shady connections would have been immediately indicted

[QUOTE=Elspin;50258933]why are you trying so desperately to find some excuse for this not being massively illegal, I mean trying to pretend this was just some harmless goof when literally anyone else other than a former first lady with shady connections would have been immediately indicted[/QUOTE] It's just looks a lot less black and white to me than people are trying to make it out as. I think Clinton, more than any other candidate, is attacked by things that are blatant oversimplifications of matters related to her.

[QUOTE=proboardslol;50258945]It's just looks a lot less black and white to me than people are trying to make it out as. I think Clinton, more than any other candidate, is attacked by things that are blatant oversimplifications of matters related to her.[/QUOTE] Whatever her motives, whether it was incompetence or something more sinister is irrelevant. She handled top secret information in an insecure manner. A position of authority shouldn't protect her from the consequences anyone doing the same would face.

[QUOTE=bdd458;50258519]it doesn't take a technical person to know you shouldn't be keeping classified info on servers that are not government owned and run :~)[/QUOTE] Yeah, clinton and trump have shown that they are completely technology illiterate, older people know nothing about how computers work or where information is being stored. Sure she made a mistake, but I highly doubt it was intentional and more likely not knowing how technology works.

[QUOTE=proboardslol;50258871]Right, I understand that the issue is because she's using a private email. However, the issue is not that using a private email is illegal, the issue is she didn't go through proper protocol to catalog and store those emails for government use. Had she done that, nobody would've cared. This isn't about the security of the server, and from what I've read, experts have examined it and determined that nobody has even attempted to hack it, so the issue isn't that classified info was at risk, just that she didn't follow the proper procedures for [I]record-keeping[/I]. People are missing the fact that this isn't about security, but about Clinton blatantly trying to circumvent FOIA requests. But no, saying "INSECURE SERVER" is an easier soundbyte. This is just Benghazi again[/QUOTE] Imagine you have a birthday present for your Mom. You've been saving up to get her something special this year because she's so wonderful. You end up buying her a $20,000 blood diamond. You've been keeping it in a lockbox inside your house safe keeping. She [I]can't[/I] know about it because it would ruin the amazing surprise, and you make sure to explain to this to me in detail. You give the diamond to me because you need to go out of town for a skiing trip. You tell me to bring it back to your lockbox. I decide that I know the best hiding spot, which is inside a shoebox on the sidewalk outside your mom's house. I set down the box and diamond and leave it there for the weekend. When I come back the shoebox appears like it hasn't been touched, but I have no proof that nobody tampered with it. When you come back to town, your mother's neighbor tells you that I left a box outside your mom's house. You confront me about this, and you're obviously pissed off because I unnecessarily put your blood diamond at risk. I also have no proof somebody touched it because I had nobody watching it to make sure it was okay. Not only do I do this, but when confronted by you, I refuse to speak to you about it and act like absolutely nothing happened by deflecting any conversation about it. Seem a bit fishy to you? So then you get your big brother to talk to me to try and find out why I even bothered with the whole shoebox idea when I could have just put it back into the lockbox in your house. The point is that because she deliberately chose not to follow the proper procedures for record-keeping, she in turn put that classified information unnecessarily at risk.

[QUOTE=ZachPL;50259040]Yeah, clinton and trump have shown that they are completely technology illiterate, older people know nothing about how computers work or where information is being stored. Sure she made a mistake, but I highly doubt it was intentional and more likely not knowing how technology works.[/QUOTE] you don't accidentally not use the government email given to you and set up a private email server. she purposefully used that server, whether or not it was malicious isn't part of the question because as a Secretary of State (and as a Presidential hopeful) you can not claim ignorance on such a gross mishandling of such a situation. and honestly, if it was an "Accident" (somehow) she would have owned up to it far earlier - instead of having to be contradicted by evidence.

[QUOTE=proboardslol;50258531]I don't think it's an excuse but I don't think it's worth sending someone to jail over.[/QUOTE] I do. If I were to be put in a position of trust over those documents and did exactly what she did under the exact same pretenses I'd be thrown into Sing Sing or Leavenworth and forgotten about without a second thought. The only reason there's even a [i]hint[/i] of discussion here is because it's Hillary Motherfucking Clinton. If she did the crime she deserves the time. I don't give a shit if she's the second coming of Jesus, throw her ass in the pen as the law provides and be done with it. She isn't above the law just because she's a politician, hell, she should be [b]less[/b] above the law than average joes like you or I.

[QUOTE=proboardslol;50258531]I don't think it's an excuse but I don't think it's worth sending someone to jail over.[/QUOTE] Stupidity isn't a valid defense against the law.

Oops, I accidentally murdered a woman I was butchering. I totally don't work at the local bar association as a lawyer. I had no idea that was against the law! So I must be innocent!