Oh no.......thousands of Bernie fans moving to....TRUMP?!

I dont believe I mischaracterized anything.


Here is you from post 135 which you directed others to look at.

It seems as if you were doing just that. Those links from 2015 were shown IMO to be inaccurate, as was your paraphrasing of what they contained.

 

Why not?

 

Sure it could have malware on it, but the bigger picture is that it also contains emails from the Lawyer to Clinton....which probably shouldn't be there. Speculation of course...but it's also pure speculation to claim they're simply checking for malware when the story says emails are on it.

 

I don't take those 2 things seriously from him. Didn't he even back down in the debates?

 

Gross negligence legal definition;

Onus is on the accuser to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that gross negligence was intentional on her part.

As far as the server is concerned trying to tie any potential hacking to Hillary will be a stretch. First off there needs to be evidence of a hacking and proof that whatever was hacked was of significance. Secondly, you will need to establish that Hillary was deliberately trying to expose confidential data to hacking attempts and that she was fully aware that the server would not only be hacked, but successfully hacked. Thirdly, you need to show that she deliberately and maliciously thwarted any and all attempts to secure the data from hacking. Lastly you will need to show that Hillary had both the necessary technology knowledge and deliberate intent to compromise classified data.

Yes, it is entirely possible that her systems admin could have done all of the above for her but then you have to prove conspiracy and collusion on top of all of the above. At this stage you are so far out on a tenuous legal limb(o) that you can hear it cracking under your own weight each time you take another breath.

 

No there is something seriosly wrong with hillary using a private server. I find it a lot more objectionable than using a yaho o account or something. THink about it why do you go thru the entire hassle of using your own private server? You want control of the info so that nobody can compel it from you. You dont want to be accountable to anyone then when they ask it from you it suddenly gets deleted.

People talk of dictators hillarys action shows that she believes she is beyond accountability from anyone.

 

So you did mischaracterize what I posted because nowhere have I posted that "she's scott free".

 

Emails between clients and lawyers fall under ACP (attorney client privilege) and are therefore deemed to be private and cannot be used as evidence by law enforcement or discovery by the courts. There is zero speculation about ACP except by those who have an agenda against Hillary.

 

Definition seems to fit just fine. The very first line is all you need.

You cant chat with Blumenthal about Libyan policy. Blumenthal was not on the payroll because Obama had declined him. Gowdy has emails with Clinton and Blumenthal discussing Libya, and even assets names according to reports. Doesnt get more gross negligent than that.


The part that keeps getting overlooked in your defense is sending classified email that she shouldnt have been doing.

It's not all about hacking, deleting and possible malware. If I had to speculate, thats why the FBI wants that thumb drive, not malware infections...but we'll have to wait for official words obviously.
They are still investigating.

 

And yet you were not in a high dudgeon when 5,000,000 emails vanished from Bush jr's private email server which was a violation of the Presidential Records Act.

http://mediamatters.org/blog/2015/03/10/flashback-when-millions-of-lost-bush-white-hous/202820

 

Then they dont need to correspond with him at all...ut for some reason they seem to want to and they want to look at that thumb drive.

 

uh we already kicked out the bushes. If you want to prosecute them go for it. You have our support. Again it is wrong even if both of them did it. Btw it should tell you something if both branches of the monarchy think they are so above the law that they can do this.

 

Fair enough. You implied it, but did not use those words.

 

It's possible she needs to worry...but nothing so far indicates that.

 

Not unless he did in the last few debates, i haven't watched the last couple honestly.
His tax plan cuts taxes too dramatically as well. We need money to pay for things.

 

Id agree except they did compel her to turn it over and recovered what was deleted

 

but you only have her word that that is what is in there. Thats precisely why its a government server so that this doesnt come up. Its why you use a company email instead of your own in a corporation.

i dont know if im explaining it well but there really is something wrong with this. Its all about accountability.

 

Paraphrasing, not word for word, means scott free in other ways

 

I agree she did it to avoid accountability but it didn't work. I think the govt said they were able to recover everything

 

No, I did not imply anything.

I clearly stated that there would not be an indictment because the evidence is not there for a successful prosecution and she had been cleared of any wrongdoing when it came to deleting the emails.

As far as the server goes the odds of there being an indictment are virtually nil because it would be even more difficult to prove intent on a purely technical matter. Even the most basic of firewalls and antivirus software would be sufficient for reasonable doubt and no one sets up a server without those functions in place. When it comes to email servers they are essential given the nature of the data.

So given what I know of regulatory compliance I don't see anything coming of the FBI investigation unless there was an actual conspiracy which is always a possibility but a very unlikely one IMO.

 

There would have been copies of every single email she sent on the government email servers too because that is how email works.

 

its not the fact that she got caught though i think she is keeping a lot back its the fact that she tried and did it for years and years. The sad thing is most people are prefectly fine with what she did.

People talk about a dictator. HIllary is the closest one you will have to it.

 

but she used her own servers. what about her communications as secretary of state to yemen or something? The only people who would have a copy are her and the yemen doods. Seriously there is something wrong with what she did. Theres a reason companies insist you use their email.

 

And if the only thing ever under concern was her deleting emails...you'd likely be right. But as we know, that was not all of it. Deleting the emails and claiming they were all personal (which has been found to be untrue) was only part of it.

I'm sorry, but we're going in circles here. We already had a discussion about intent not being needed, gross negligence and all that.

Well, I guess we just have to wait and see then.

 

. . . and the whole world will follow him.