Just call her Thunderbutt
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

there are no security implications the deed and any damage is already done and the policy has been changed and we know what did happen in Benghazi and what didn't happen .. or do we need another investigation

Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.

I will wait for the outcome of the investigation on the emails and accept the findings
will others ?

we'll have to wait and see .. but if past history is any indicator I dont hold out much hope

You are utterly incapable of rational thought on these matters. But you are precious.

On the emails, we need to see if she broke the law. Spence would be completely satisfied with her saying that she didn't do anything wrong, but there was enough evidence there for the FBI (who works for a Democrat) to launch an investigation. Is no laws were broken, let's say that and move on.

I love how all the Hillary fans hang their hats on it not being illegal (yet)..

Was it careless - yes
Was it irresponsible -yes
Was it self serving - yes
Was it illegal - TBD

Just the qualities I want in the next president.....a self-serving, careless, irresponsible person who likes to work the loopholes.....

What she did was wrong.....period. She bypassed safeguards for her own convenience.Doesn't matter what the FBI finds.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Jesus Jim, they edit a video to manipulate her intent and you're like a moth to a flame.

Well, to be fair to Hillary I haven't seen any evidence of illegal behavior on her part.

Perhaps, the FBI has seen some evidence. Or does the FBI investigate when there is no evidence for investigating?

Yes, it's amazing how not doing something "illegal" qualifies Hillary for President even though what she did was "wrong." Of course, when other past Presidents who were not of Hillary's political persuasions did wrong but not illegal stuff, that was sufficient to make them incompetent, unqualified, stupid, bad, and not worthy of the office.

But, we have to understand Progressive's use of Orwellian Newspeak. When applied to a Progressive, doing wrong is not wrong doing.

The FBI didn't launch an investigation because they saw evidence of wrongdoing, the investigation was in response to a security referral by the IG over the potential for mishandling of information. That's an important distinction.

I'm sure the 82 special agents are paying attention to that distinction .
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

There are varying degrees of everything. Does being arrested disqualify someone for office? Didn't disqualify Bush.

Really I think one of the most important factors is intent. If Clinton was simply trying to perform under incredibly challenging circumstances people will largely give her a pass.

There are not 82 special agents on this case, you got duped by a long since corrected piece of sloppy reporting.

nor would you ever :rolleyes:...blind partisanship

😂😂😂😂😂 That one will go down as a Spence Top Ten
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Isn't "mishandling of information" doing something wrong?

That's right, because she's a Bond villain. I had forgot about that.

3.5 hour interview with the FBI today. I'm sure she lied somewhere during that interview . I don't think she could help her self
Good bye Clintons
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Yes, because she's eeeeevvvvvvvvvvvvvviiiiiiiiiiiiillllllllllllllllll lll...

Note she wasn't even subpoenaed. There's nothing there...

When the FBI request an interview it's usually best to comply . Even if your name is Clinton
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Actually, Bond villains are more transparent and honest than she is.

You are an extremist. Evil would have been sufficient.

The intent of having a private server that you can have control over is that you have the ability to wipe away emails instantly if needed. Think of it as the ultimate in paper shredding.

Illegal? Probably not.

Hillary is a snake.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I don't get this. You're communicating with people electronically. There will be a record of it somewhere...if the intent was to hide emails you'd never mix work and personal.

Right there you just summed up why it was wrong for her to have her own server.....
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Which is why you keep all communications within a secure enclave, preferably encrypted. So that, at least, that record is only being viewed by people with a "Need to know"

The EXACT same thing can be said if you want to secure e-mails.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Nobody, including Clinton has argued having her own server was the best thing to do.

Intent.

Well I guess that makes everything ok then....where do I cast my vote....that there is presidential material if ever I saw it :rolleyes:
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

This is a silly remark. Look at past presidents who have been regarded as successful and take inventory of their faults...

The road to Hell is paved with good intentions. Good, savvy, leaders avoid that road. Sloppy, incompetent, careless leaders often, if not usually, take us down that road.

Whether or not she broke some law may not be as important or telling in regards to her leadership ability as is her penchant for not choosing "the best thing to do." It is telling, as well, that you couch her mishaps in euphemisms such as her not arguing that something she did "was the best thing to do." You can't seem to be able to say that her blunders were stupid, careless, incompetent, or wrong. Nor can her media lackeys. Which is why it is necessary to have a gazillion hearings on Benghazi--each hearing uncovering what you consider an insignificant new thing, but, in your estimation, not worth the money spent, nor worth even talking about.

What is most useful in having more hearings is not letting what is important continuously be swept under the rug by a compliant media. Rather, it is to disable the media's spin and inattention which wipes away any thought or memory of the really important failure in policy. To keep hammering away at the obvious incompetence in leadership which needs to be the important "old news." To, eventually, force the media to recognize the flaws in her executive ability to lead this nation. All the hearings, even though they didn't convict her of doing something illegal, have plainly, but not explicitly, pointed out that Benghazi, under her leadership, was a failure. Foreign policy decisions, under her leadership, were flawed--wrong. And there was a pattern of failure as in the Russian reset--her support and push for the ousting of Qadaffi and Assad--her assessment of the so-called Arab Spring.

Foreign policy is one the most important responsibilities of POTUS. The media touts her accomplishments, her smartness, her Progressive bona fides. But it consistently overlooks or underplays her incompetence.

Each "investigation" chips away at her manufactured expertise. The overriding incompetence needs to be squeezed out of the information lock box in which the mainstream media hides and protects it. That is the important thing in this election year. Not whether she unintentionally broke some little law.