I think you missed the point Villager.the thread was about Hillary Clinton , and then it was directed to a Ferguson nonsensical path and the rice pricing post wast to just show show how hard it is for some to stay on topic. But like W said "fool me once, shame on you...... fool me - you can't get fooled again."

Than you for explaining it for some of the other posters.

So, anytime someone gets off thread, which is pretty much always, we can reduce ourselves to self-serving ridicule of anyone else.

I see....classy !

Since we are pretty much off subject, I would like to point out the the current cost of tea in China depends on several variables including the type of tea and worldwide demand for it. Other determining factors include whether or not it is considered fair trade tea, international tariffs and the state of the Chinese economy in regard to international relations.

Brevity is the soul of wit ... not repetition, tedious explanation and twisted attempts at being clever.

Did you neglect to read the story or simply choose to ignore the salient point about the information on her private server? The material on her server was NOT CLASSIFIED at the time she was dealing with the issue. Like much of what our government does, the material was later changed just this week to being classified. It was an email she received and she did not send it on nor respond. So the implication that she deflected classified material to her private server is completely bogus. But having the full story is not as useful for right wing conspiracy theories.

Did you read the earlier post on SBU information?? Do you even know what that is? Do you realize the SBU, when aggregated, is typically considered classified? How much of the 30,000 emails might qualify?

Also, do you think it's a great idea for senior government leaders to put their official email and other written correspondence on private servers? Are you REALLY defending that????

Interesting claim that a large majority of the American people don't trust her. Do you have a poll to support your view?

http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnn/2015/im...inton.poll.pdf
Hillary Clinton and the Republican 2016 hopefuls - The Washington Post

A majority would be over 50%, a large majority would be at least 55/45. I'll await your posting of the source of your FACT. Otherwise perhaps your statement is a bit out of line to reality.

And I will bow to you expert knowledge of the handling of SBU materials, even though everything I find on the internet contradicts your assertion of magical reclassification due to aggregation
http://www.state.gov/documents/organization/88404.pdf
Maybe I am just a poor reader and you can find the evidence for me that supports your knowledge.
As to your question about Clinton's use of a private server, no it was not a great idea, but it also was not illegal.

I believe it was concise.

It was not repetitive since one post concerned rice and the other tea.

Who was attempting to be clever?

But what does that have to do with trusting Clinton? The majority of posts on TOTV have little or no credibility.

But did she not say that she had only ONE email address and now we find TWO of them. ?

Good news. When Hillary becomes president, all of her correspondence will be carefully archived. That includes emails, tweets, phone calls, etc. All are monitored and recorded as they are for all presidents.

This post sort of underscores something I just do not understand.

Despite being dishonest, not trusted folks like this poster are simply giddy over having her elected as President.

Now what does that say.....just for politics, they will demean goodness, and embrace sheer dishonesty simply to win an election for their party. And you wonder why this country is so screwed up.

Oh, I have no doubt that George Soros will get out the vote and the last few years of trying to make it easier, and assuredly less secure to vote, will serve her well.

BUT, is this the way it is supposed to be ? Very alarming to me that people are that shallow, but I suppose it is true.

I do object to the statement above somewhere that says none of the posts on TOTV are credible.
Who said so? What constitutes credible? A footnote with sources?
How are opinions counted/measured? Are they credible? (of course they are).

The second comment regarding folks voting for the party or the gender no matter the character, gender or qualifications of any given candidate.
Unfortunately we live in a time when party politics is the only measure.
Follow the party pied piper even to an ill end.
Party first no matter what.
No thinking required.

The guidelines for determining which aspects of SBU, or what level of aggregation thereof, can result in the material becoming classified are themselves classified. That is why you can’t find it via Internet search. It stems from an Executive Order issued a number of years back, and is administered by the Director of National Intelligence.

The classical definitions of what is considered legally classified relates to potential “damage” to the US national security, but at varying levels. E.g. Confidential information, if disclosed, could do “damage” to the national security of the US whereas Top Secret, if disclosed, involves information that can produce “exceptionally grave” damage.

Given that the State Department (actually due to FBI pressure) just “classified” information initially sent out by SecState Clinton as "secret" vs “unclassified” neatly makes this point. There’s no doubt that some of what Hillary sent out was, and is in fact classified, even if she says it wasn’t. I say this for two reasons.

As the 3rd most senior official in the USG’s Executive Branch, pretty much everything she did for official business had that potential … i.e. she was THE focal point for US foreign policy. Don’t forget, she was given daily intelligence briefings (i.e. highly classified) so I personally think it’s thus a statistical certainly some of what she talked about in her personal emails later spilled over since she was using it to conduct all of her official government business.

The second reason is the sheer volume of emails, when aggregated and analyzed by a competent professional, would yield all types of information of interest, and certainly be capable of causing some level of “damage” to US national security thus classified. There’ also no doubt that the major intelligence services (Russian, Chinese, Israeli, French etc.) easily hacked her homegrown email systems and now have everything she sent out which likely submits her to subtle foreign pressure or even potential blackmail.

One example would be if she connected, in any way, official government decisions or policies with “gifts” or donations to the Clinton Foundation. My guess is she did that … repeatedly, and explains why she zapped the emails.

Thus, in my view, she knowingly failed (de facto or otherwise) to protect national security information, which is a felony. In addition, it’s patently obvious she broke the Federal Records Act …beyond any reasonable dispute, and that is another felony. If her last name was not "Clinton", the USG would already be in the process of bringing formal legal charges against her.

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/03/03/us...lags.html?_r=0

The real question is this … WHY would Hillary have gone to the trouble of setting up her own email server etc? I know you are too sophisticated to accept the explanation she offered to many (and unfortunately gullibly accepted by many) that she didn’t want to carry two phones.

There are only two reasons I can think of:

1. She has unbelievably poor judgment coupled with unbelievably incompetent IT technical advice, or

2. She wanted to be able to quickly eliminate the evidence/email trails if and when needed … which is what she did a few weeks ago.

Explanation #2 means she knowingly did something (or many things) that were wrong and thus would not want it on TV or the media ... especially since she wants to be our President.

You said you don’t think what she did was a “great idea.” Why then do you think she did it? What’s your theory or potential explanation? Do you agree with my two options above, or do you have another one?