Kind of like the Trump collusion allegations?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

No, not anything like that.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

and what qualifies as “evidence” to you, depends entirely, on whose ox is getting gored.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I think you're unable to concede.

Simple question, was the server hacked? Yes or No.

Hint: Begins with "Y" ends with "es"
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Wasn't the article that was linked in the beginning of this thread about China hacking the emails? And the FBI stated that is not true.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

try to pay attention :smash:

That's why I asked those questions.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

It's hard to keep track with so many versions floating around...I thought the FBI said it was hacked, but they didn't know by who?

I see a lot of oxen with indictments and guilty pleas ... and none are email oxen

again once again you display them as some how the same :claps:

See here's the thing. When someone makes an accusation against a conservative, to Spence, that's sufficient evidence of wrongdoing. Hos threshold of what qualifies as evidence, is a bit different, when the subject is a democrat.

As to the lack of indictments, MAYBE (no way of knowing) some of that has to do with the fact that the senior FBI agent on that case, made it very clear that he was going to help Hilary beat Trump. Then there's that hilarious private meeting between Bill Clinton and Loretta Lunch on the private jet, and Hilary's announcement days after her being cleared, that if she won, she'd consider keeping Lynch on as AG. Now, I never went to law school, but I do know what a quid pro quo is, and so do you.

A single email account of a staffer was accessed briefly by an unknown because someone likely guessed a password. This isn’t the same thing as a server being hacked which the FBI doesn’t believe ever occurred.

This is more like that FB request from a cute girl with no friends.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Yes, It Is


Hack
[hak]

verb (used with object)

1. to cut, notch, slice, chop, or sever (something) with or as with heavy, irregular blows (often followed by up or down):
to hack meat; to hack down trees.

2. to break up the surface of (the ground).

3. to clear (a road, path, etc.) by cutting away vines, trees, brush, or the like:
They hacked a trail through the jungle.

4. to damage or injure by crude, harsh, or insensitive treatment; mutilate; mangle:
The editor hacked the story to bits.

5. to reduce or cut ruthlessly; trim:
The Senate hacked the budget severely before returning it to the House.

6. Slang. to deal or cope with; handle:
He can't hack all this commuting.

7. Computers.
A. to modify (a computer program or electronic device) or write (a program) in a skillful or clever way:
Developers have hacked the app.
I hacked my tablet to do some very cool things.
B. to circumvent security and break into (a network, computer, file, etc.), usually with malicious intent:
Criminals hacked the bank's servers yesterday.
Our team systematically hacks our network to find vulnerabilities.


Q. Were they authorized to access anything on that server?
A. No

Funny how the FBI and IG don’t share your catch all definition. You’re sort of reminding me of the Cable Guy right about now.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

The Intelligence Community Inspector General, not the FBI, discovered the hack. That's what the report says. Now, if the ICIG didn't really uncover a hack, that should be easy to prove, someone can just ask them if it's true or not. If it's not true, the people reporting this will look stupid and dishonest.

I don't have a clue what the ICIG is.

That's because politics isn't involved when I look at it. I look at it as the guy that needs to make sure it doesn't happen again.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Did you know this entire allegation is based off of a single remark made by a single house republican who says someone told hm about it?

Can you really believe the CIA would have this information and not give it to the FBI performing an investigation into her email?

Oh I forgot, the republicans running the show, Comey, Wray, Rosenstein etc... are all in Clinton’s pocket...that makes perfect sense.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Has nothing to do with politics. When some gets into your FB account and sends messages to your friends people don’t run around screaming the servers have been hacked.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

"Did you know this entire allegation is based off of a single remark made by a single house republican who says someone told hm about it?"

Did you know that is the same flimsy allegation was made against a Republican, you'd be calling for them to go right to sentencing?

Comey is a Republican? Sure, sure. Just like you were going to vote for McCain, or whoever it was..

This post speaks volumes....:rolleyes:

No wonder you think Hillary did nothing wrong.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

:agree:


(well that and you would be making a career of creating little rocks out of big rocks at Leavenworth if you did that)

I’ve never once said she didn’t do anything wrong, just that it didn’t rise the the criminal standard you want to apply. Comey was right, there’s no prosecutable case.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I still think trump should build his stupid wall out of hillaries emails. NO ONE CAN GET OVER THEM ☠️☠️☠️☠️☠️
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Brilliant
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

It rises to the same criminal standard that others have been convicted of. Comey is not a prosecutor. Several prosecutors have said they'd love to have the opportunity to prosecute her. Pretty much an open and shut case. Comey is so informed about his job that he got fired, at the recommendation of the AG.

No it really doesn’t.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Briliant.

Clinton’s email issues don’t fall anywhere under the espionage act of 1917. Not sure what he’s thinking,
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

They fall under the Act, but various people or "experts" argue whether her actions are prosecutable. As to be expected, "conservatives" say they are, and "liberals" say they are not.

the Espionage act has been amended several times, and the wording is deemed by many to be too vague. It us argued that several have been convicted under the Act by stretching its language. But, nonetheless, they were found guilty and sentenced to prison terms. The point being that it was necessary to prevent future offenses.

Hillary certainly exposed classified info on an insufficiently encrypted server, rather than using the required government servers. Yet she defended prosecuting others because of the danger and precedent of careless mishandling of classified info. But she, of course, was above all that. It was not deemed important to prosecute her in order to prevent this from happening again.

When uneven application of the law openly exists, it destroys the people's confidence in government and its laws. The laws, apparently, apply to some, but not others. Greenwald points out Clinton's, and others in power, hypocrisy.

I'd like to see a debate on the subject between you and Greenwald. I would bet my money on him and that he would mop the floor with you.

Well, considering I’m not likely to debate him it’s somewhat pointless to deal in hypotheticals.

In all the cases he cites though there is evidence on intent to harm the US, willful hoarding of sensitive data or behavior with sensitive data that is contrary to the job that gave access to the information. With Clinton you have none of those. She wasn’t prosecuted because according to a Republican there wasn’t a prosecutable case. They tightened up the rules around use of email regardless after the fact...the investigation clearly found the protocols were not in step with the times.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device