Rickyp, you spin so much, it would surprise me if you can stand.
rickyp wrote:dag
What's amazing to me is that she continues to refer to the FBI investigation as "a review." I guess she has to in order to downplay it. It's not a review. It's a criminal investigation
.
I guess its right that she needs to downplay it politically.
However she is also right when she calls the State departments actions a review".
The State Department launched its own review in January after revealing during its review of more than 50,000 pages of email it had discovered 22 documents that had to be upgraded to “top secret” and withheld from the public. The review focuses on whether the information in those messages had been improperly handled at the time the emails were sent
That has NOTHING to do with the FBI, however. With regard to that "investigation," she has consistently LIED. Thanks for dragging in the "review" of a department she used to head, has many "friends" still working at it, and which is utterly unrelated to the FBI.
And also right when she says the FBI investigation is not targeted at her specifically.
The FBI is investigating whether national security secrets were compromised by the use of Mrs. Clinton’s server and whether anyone violated criminal law through the use of the server.
http://www.wsj.com/articles/state-depar ... 1459548288
Actually, you don't know that. Providing a link doesn't tell us why they are giving immunity to Pagliano, why they are interviewing Clinton's closest associates, or why they are waiting to talk to her until last. All of that suggests she is the focus of their investigation.
Since we know the Russians penetrated the official email servers of the State Department, its hard to imagine that Clinton using a private server would have been any more vulnerable. (her server held only a small part of the total correspondence that State's servers held..) And, we don't know that her server was hacked.... So maybe it was actually better... Or maybe the Russians figured once they got into State they had it all...
http://www.cnn.com/2015/03/10/politics/ ... orst-ever/
Immaterial.
Besides that, her server had zero security for two months. Anyone could have hacked it then--or put spyware on it. She was clearly negligent. If you're suggesting the State Department is negligent, how would that make her negligence okay?
So if the FBI is balancing its investigation with an investigation of all cyber security in State and throughout the government ..... it will find that the whole system is vulnerable. And needs upgrades.
So, the answer is "homebrew servers!"
And that the law that allowed Clinton to do what she and Powell did ... should be (and has been) changed.
Powell sent a handful from a private account. Clinton sent many, many thousands. Powell never had a private server. Clinton insisted on one. Powell used a secured PC when at State Dept offices. Clinton refused. #perspective.
And that's about it.
Not exactly criminal behavior is it Dag?
If it is as simple and harmless as you make it out to be, how is the FBI spending so much time investigating it?
Please, do explain. You seem to "know" more than any source out there. You "know" she is innocent. What exactly is the FBI doing? Why offer immunity?
And, since you know so much,
why did Hillary lie to the American people about Benghazi?The documents finally released to Judicial Watch by the State Department confirm that, even as the attack was still raging, Clinton told Mohammed Magariaf, then-president of Libya’s stand-in government, “[T] here is a gun battle ongoing, which I understand Ansar as-Sharia is claiming responsibility for.” (See here – scroll to transcript of Clinton-Magariaf 9/11/12 call, finally disclosed by State Department to Judicial Watch on March 7, 2016. In the transcript, Ansar al-Sharia is spelled “Ansar as-Sharia,” a common English rendering of the transliterated Arabic.)
Moreover, in the hours after the siege, Clinton told her daughter Chelsea that the attack had been staged by “an al-Qaeda-like group” – a fact we know only because the Judicial Watch lawsuit finally forced the administration to release Clinton’s email to her daughter.
You won't answer that, will you? It's too difficult to even try to explain such blatant deception.