Originally Posted by Guest

I didn't repeat the line twice.

Was "her use of personal email was known to officials within the Department during her tenure"?

Was her use of a personal email server known to officials within the Department during her tenure?

The first line is a quote. " "
The second line is my question about her server.

Why would that matter? If she knows the law and the regs, and she deliberately or negligently ignores this, does she have an excuse if she can claim "well they knew I was doing it" ?

No one is going to admit that they knew she was breaking federal law, by making themselves complicit in her wrong doing.

Why is there no discussion regarding the individuals who sent post-classified emails to her. Could it be they are not running for the Democratic nomination and there is no political gain to be had?

Concerning this issue I believe whatever any Progressive might post on this site .

Originally Posted by Guest

Concerning this issue I believe whatever any Progressive might post on this site .

Me too.

Me 3 ! I ALWAYS believe 100% of whatever the Dem Party , the NY Times , CBS , NBC and ABC have to say about any and all issues .

Her's all you really need:
go ahead and take a look at the rankings.

1) Fox News: 260
2) Wall Street Journal: 383
3) The Drudge Report: 748
4) New York Post: 888
5) WorldNetDaily: 2,692
6) Newsmax: 3,264
7) Free Republic: 3,988
8) The Washington Times: 4,717
9) TownHall: 5,986
10) The Rush Limbaugh Show: 7,624
11) Real Clear Politics: 7,957
12) National Review: 10,346
13) Hot Air: 11,517
14) Michelle Malkin: 12,871
15) Glenn Beck: 13,153
16) Human Events Online: 17,538
17) The Heritage Foundation: 20,746
18) Newsbusters: 21,452
19) Lew Rockwell: 24,677
20) The Weekly Standard: 25,565
21) News With Views: 27,352
22) Sean Hannity: 28,086
23) Pajamas Media 28,969
24) The Ludwig von Mises Institute: 29,116
25) Atlas Shrugs: 29,548
26) The American Thinker: 29,980
27) Cybercast News Service: 32,348
28) Neal Boortz: 32,857
29) Reason: 33,254
30) Lucianne: 34,135
31) Ann Coulter 36,864
32) The Cato Journal: 39,187
33) Daily Paul: 41,465
34) The Volokh Conspiracy: 42,021
35) Bill O’Reilly: 42,533
36) Redstate: 42,655
37) Conservapedia: 43,866
38) Power Line: 44,542
39) Jewish World Review: 44,765
40) Front Page Magazine: 48,645
41) Daniel Pipes: 49,692
42) Little Green Footballs: 49,844
43) Campaign for Liberty: 50,638
44) The American Spectator: 52,377
45) Commentary: 55,447
46) GOPUSA: 58,771
47) James Lileks’: 60,536
48) Right Wing News: 63,097
49) Wizbang: 63,427
50) Day by Day: 63,455
51) Moonbattery: 67,850
52) Life News: 69,493
53) Vdare: 70,866
54) Debbie Schlussel: 73,543
55) Republican National Committee: 73,599
56) Lifesitenews: 73,823
57) Dick Morris: 77,187
58) Blackfive: 83,031
59) Outside the Beltway: 83,455
60) American Conservative: 90,579

Originally Posted by Guest

Her's all you really need:
go ahead and take a look at the rankings.

1) Fox News: 260
2) Wall Street Journal: 383
3) The Drudge Report: 748
4) New York Post: 888
5) WorldNetDaily: 2,692
6) Newsmax: 3,264
7) Free Republic: 3,988
8) The Washington Times: 4,717
9) TownHall: 5,986
10) The Rush Limbaugh Show: 7,624
11) Real Clear Politics: 7,957
12) National Review: 10,346
13) Hot Air: 11,517
14) Michelle Malkin: 12,871
15) Glenn Beck: 13,153
16) Human Events Online: 17,538
17) The Heritage Foundation: 20,746
18) Newsbusters: 21,452
19) Lew Rockwell: 24,677
20) The Weekly Standard: 25,565
21) News With Views: 27,352
22) Sean Hannity: 28,086
23) Pajamas Media 28,969
24) The Ludwig von Mises Institute: 29,116
25) Atlas Shrugs: 29,548
26) The American Thinker: 29,980
27) Cybercast News Service: 32,348
28) Neal Boortz: 32,857
29) Reason: 33,254
30) Lucianne: 34,135
31) Ann Coulter 36,864
32) The Cato Journal: 39,187
33) Daily Paul: 41,465
34) The Volokh Conspiracy: 42,021
35) Bill O’Reilly: 42,533
36) Redstate: 42,655
37) Conservapedia: 43,866
38) Power Line: 44,542
39) Jewish World Review: 44,765
40) Front Page Magazine: 48,645
41) Daniel Pipes: 49,692
42) Little Green Footballs: 49,844
43) Campaign for Liberty: 50,638
44) The American Spectator: 52,377
45) Commentary: 55,447
46) GOPUSA: 58,771
47) James Lileks’: 60,536
48) Right Wing News: 63,097
49) Wizbang: 63,427
50) Day by Day: 63,455
51) Moonbattery: 67,850
52) Life News: 69,493
53) Vdare: 70,866
54) Debbie Schlussel: 73,543
55) Republican National Committee: 73,599
56) Lifesitenews: 73,823
57) Dick Morris: 77,187
58) Blackfive: 83,031
59) Outside the Beltway: 83,455
60) American Conservative: 90,579

I have always found #41 Mr. Daniel Pipes to be an excellent resource of true and accurate reporting and insight . More people should embrace his thoughts .

Originally Posted by Guest

I have always found #41 Mr. Daniel Pipes to be an excellent resource of true and accurate reporting and insight . More people should embrace his thoughts .

me too

Originally Posted by Guest

me too

Me Three ! He is 100% unbiased and insightful .

Originally Posted by Guest

Why is there no discussion regarding the individuals who sent post-classified emails to her. Could it be they are not running for the Democratic nomination and there is no political gain to be had?

The point is that she was the Secstate and broke the law. What her minions did was also against the law, even though she ordered them to break the law. What will make or break her is whether or not they can protect Obama from the fall out since he was also privy to her "classified" emails. They may clear her just to keep Obama from being complicit.

Originally Posted by Guest

The point is that she was the Secstate and broke the law. What her minions did was also against the law, even though she ordered them to break the law. What will make or break her is whether or not they can protect Obama from the fall out since he was also privy to her "classified" emails. They may clear her just to keep Obama from being complicit.

I think they need to prove malicious intent.

" They " do not have to prove that there was anything " malicious " . It is sufficient to find impropriety by demonstrating an " intent " to bend or break the rules . IE a " work around " the system is not permitted no matter the intent .

Originally Posted by Guest

" They " do not have to prove that there was anything " malicious " . It is sufficient to find impropriety by demonstrating an " intent " to bend or break the rules . IE a " work around " the system is not permitted no matter the intent .

As a person that formerly worked with ALL communications, classified and unclassified for the State Dept. I can tell you that you are totally correct. There is no "malicious" required at all. The mere fact that classified information was transmitted on an unsecured system, whether marked or not, was a felony. And I would say that there is "implied" intent when you have to physically take that classified information out of a secured area to put it into a work station that is open to the Internet.

Hillary also knew that all ambassador travel itineraries were classified and she put it on the Internet.
Hillary also knew that using a cell phone or blackberry, etc in a secure area is breaking the law too. And she was witnessed doing that on several occasions.

I can only guess at why she has not been charged. And my guess would be that they are trying to cover the POTUS.

Officials: Scant evidence that Clinton had malicious intent in handling of emails - The Washington Post

I wonder if the Director of the FBI will resign if the AG fails to indict her .