This is an even bigger cover-up than when Michelle Obama had all that sewer sludge dumped on the White house grounds so she could grow sweet potatoes... 🤐

DrafterX wrote:

Ever serve in the military, Brewha? All military personnel who will, or may have, access to information that is deemed confidential (lowest) to top secret SCI (highest) has to sign a form stating they will not disclose any of that information to persons not authorized to receive it, and do everything within their power to protect it.

You can not believe that the Secretary of State did not have to read and sign something similar. And then you'd have to be a complete moron to believe she had NO idea that setting up a private server for such information could potentially compromise it.

Had a military member done what she did, they would have been court-martialed.

MACS wrote:

Never applied for the FBI. I did have a secret clearance, though.

So then you are familiar with what I am talking about, and you're still okay with her getting gov't emails on a private server?

And if you watch the FBI director in Drafter's link, he consistently points out she is a liar. But hey... why should she be any different than her husband who committed perjury and got away with it?

MACS wrote:

She was failed to handle the data properly. This is not unique to her and happens with others at her level.

Positions lie. In the case of the interview, was she wrong about facts or willfully committing perjury? I have seen no perjury charges either.



But this only underscores the point:

Conservatives will grasp at any straw rather then debate real issues.

Brewha wrote:

Her mishandling of the e-mails and getting away it is a different issue than the open lies to congress and the public... 😟

DrafterX wrote:

Conservatives will grasp at any straw rather then debate real issues.

Brewha wrote:

That is another issue and if it is criminal so be it. So far no one has made the case well enough to prosecute as hard as some try.

What she did was wrong, and I think its a political problem rather than a criminal one st this point.

The lock her up crowd misses the mark badly and it is wasted energy.

teedubbya wrote:

I think there's a lot of 'noise' from all sides that has nothing to do with 'real issues'...so I sorta get your point.

But, for me, HRC's trustworthiness is a real issue. I do NOT trust that she set up a server for any reason other than to avoid FOIA. To me, THAT is a real issue....not totally distinct from the trustworthiness thing

dstieger wrote:

That's defending her? Saying what she did was wrong but has to date been determined to not be criminal? Therefor the only way not to defend her is to say it's criminal and she needs to be locked up. Beautiful.

teedubbya wrote:

I see your point. At the same time I have never trusted a candidate to fulfill their promises, and they all tell a few lies.

But when I look at the particulars of their platforms, and trumps utter lack of a platform, I'll be voting Democratic.

Funny that you have issues with Trump's lies - they are far more common....

Brewha wrote: