Active Users:1137 Time:22/11/2024 08:48:34 PM
so you have read the contents of the emails in question? that is the larger point here moondog Send a noteboard - 02/11/2016 08:05:53 PM

View original post
I live in a military community. I have personal examples to site. If you are careless with classified material (either electronic or paper) you are in the wrong. Whether this is through intent (like a spy/traitor type situation) or by accident (inadvertently sent something...cleaned up your desk to take stuff home and you accidentally took something) you are in the fault.

Service men and women are routinely punished (significantly) for an honest mistake.

She should be no different.

~Jeordam


i do not disagree with anything you have said here. where i have the big problem is that Hillary having classified information -- or sending classified information to people cleared to receive it -- is not, nor should be, a crime.

and since the FBI doesn't even actually know what's in the emails yet, presuming that they (a) contain classified information and (b) were sent or disseminated to someone NOT cleared for the information leading to (c) "Hillary is corrupt/a crook!" is a YUUUGE leap of logic.

"The RIAA has shown a certain disregard for the creative people of the industry in their eagerness to protect the revenues of the record companies." -- Frank Zappa

"That's the trouble with political jokes in this country... they get elected!" -- Dave Lippman
Reply to message
So, uh, we're just not gonna talk about H. Clinton being back under FBI investigation, huh? *NM* - 30/10/2016 02:37:33 AM 698 Views
Until Comey clarifies, there's nothing to talk about - just speculate. - 30/10/2016 10:00:56 AM 547 Views
Nods *NM* - 30/10/2016 04:46:35 PM 244 Views
Do the math, Hillary is a known crook..... - 31/10/2016 02:21:40 AM 606 Views
You are bringing your biases and projections into this - 31/10/2016 02:17:21 PM 624 Views
I fher ex husband is carrying a laptop with claddified infomration it doesn't matter if they are new *NM* - 31/10/2016 08:17:33 PM 351 Views
being an ex-House member, he *IS* allowed classified information if it's meant for him - 31/10/2016 08:53:43 PM 541 Views
Being a CURRENT House memebr does not automatically give you a security clearance... - 01/11/2016 11:28:50 AM 504 Views
neither does having "claddified infomration" automatically presume criminal activity - 01/11/2016 04:43:24 PM 677 Views
This is where you are actually wrong.... - 01/11/2016 06:04:57 PM 485 Views
More interesting then anything.... - 01/11/2016 06:08:19 PM 508 Views
so you have read the contents of the emails in question? that is the larger point here - 02/11/2016 08:05:53 PM 540 Views
In theory, I agree with you... - 03/11/2016 03:48:58 PM 530 Views
Re: In theory, I agree with you... - 04/11/2016 06:01:55 PM 526 Views
I do love how, for the Dems, he went from... - 31/10/2016 02:17:42 PM 528 Views
Ewww. *NM* - 04/11/2016 04:06:37 PM 207 Views
she's not under any investigation whatsoever - 31/10/2016 06:00:14 PM 502 Views

Reply to Message