FBI Admits Active Hillary Investigation

Instructing the removal of markings is a separate issue from the server, but as I recall, your last sentence is true.

 

Her having a server isn't illegal but using that for official government business is and then deleting and cleaning the server of records after being subpoenaed is definitely illegal.

 

Coverup is always what gets you, too.

 

Are you sure about that?

 

I know I've never sent a work email from my private email at my old jobs because it's was firable offense. and i'm hardly the secretary of state.

 

Are things labeled as "Classified" susceptible to FOIA requests?

 

I don't know how many of these were actually emails she wrote that contained something classified. All of the instances I have heard is that the information was in reply chains. I'm sure there will be instances where she said something that would be considered classified in retrospect, though.

 

No

 

I was not aware of removing markings or placing known sensitive data on the server. I agree if those play out to be true that it is a different issue.

The primary issue of emails is different than placing known sensitive information in the server.

 

right, but it's still dumb to be sending emails to coworkers on your personal email. I thought she didn't even use her govt email?

 

Completely agree that the actions are fireable if you want to act on it.

Felonious is another matter.

If what low country was saying about removing labels or purposefully pushing sensitive information on a non-secure system, then we're getting into illegal territory.

But also note that mishandling sensitive information would apply just as much to those who sent the information that is now viewed as classified on their non-secure government systems. It's still mid-handling.

 

I think that's true.

 

I can just see Bill Clinton now, coming to see Hillary in jail. All those "conjugal visits" he'd have to make. Just to help out the female population of course.

 

When you reply to an email with classified information, you are placing that information on the server. As Secretary, she should have been able to recognize sensitive information or at least potentially sensitive based on its content. Any argument against this is disingenuous in my opinion. At best she is guilty of very poor judgment.

 

I'm not saying that she couldn't have or shouldn't have known. I am saying that the issues have to be appropriately weighed. I'm a pretty big security nut. I am as anti-Snowden as they come.

My pushback here is just separating the illegal from the poor judgement. If she typed classified information into any computer - at her home or not - that wasn't on a classified network then she can answer to that. That doesn't necessarily mean she should serve time over it. We'll see. The folks who typed the original messages that were in the email chain should be called to task equally.

 

On your first sentence, you mean Kahn was placing her words on the server, right? Because the email chain was already there if she was replaying to it and also already on other non-classified networks.

 

The problem is that her supporters know (and have long known) all of this and they don't care. There's no crime whatsoever she could blatantly commit that would sway her core supporters.

OTOH, she could be the first President to grant HERSELF a pardon....

 

her supporters truly believe it's sexism and partisanism and she hasn't never really done anything wrong.

 

They're like women's college basketball fans

 

This isn't a unique phenomenon to Hillary supporters.

I said it a year ago: if there are criminal concerns, then they need to charge her. Drawing it out is doing more harm.