patrick.net

marcus says

Powell did (more or less) the same thing.

So the question of hillary's integrity to be president comes down the the basic third grader on the playground defence of nah,nah,nah, colin did it too, colin did it too. Perfect. Sorry to burst your bubble but hillary is running for president against trump, not colin. When colin is running for president we can debate his ethics and intentions. How many more strawmen can you come up with? An endless number apparently.

marcus says

bob2356 says

So the 55,000 emails hillary sent to state

If I'm not mistaken, it's 55,000 pages of emails, constituting 30,000 emails, a full 90% of which are said to be private/personal. She's a politician and a ridiculously social person. So a lot of those emails (90%) are not even about State Dept business.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2015/03/10/the-hillary-clinton-e-mails-by-the-numbers/

Yes you are correct it is 55,000 pages in 30,000 emails. Did you read hillary's press release at all or just the headline? Nowhere does it say 90% (90% of what, total emails or turned over emails) were private and personal. It said 50% of total were private/personal. That is 50% based on what hillary says. Nothing to verify that at all. Once again it comes down to trust me. Trust me after sitting on the emails for so many years, after trying so hard not to turn any over, after providing excuse after excuse that didn't hold water, after sending her server over to the fbi wiped clean. Why didn't she have the third party archivists at state make the call on what is state department business subject to FRA and what is personal or administrative not subject to archive. That's their job, they do it every day. If she really didn't trust them it would have been childs play to get a court order forbidding them to disclose anything. She had her staff and lawyers going through her emails for months sorting them so it's not like only hillary looked at her emails. Why not an objective third party?

marcus says

Prior to 2013, these could be accounts inside the relatively unsecure State Department system or private email accounts. If they are private—running through a commercial or personal server—they have to follow some rules set up in the Federal Register .

Where did this come from? Who says the State Department system was relatively unsecure in 2009? In 2001 when powell came in that was true. Powell spent a lot of time getting state systems upgraded. It certainly wasn't true by 2009. More mix of fiction and factoids. Where is the list of "some rules" and examples of how hillary followed them. Conspicuously missing. What a surprise.

Ok let's try one more time with my question suitably rephrased to address your endless litany of strawmen arguments and irrelevant misdirections. When do you believe hillary would have sent her 30,000 unclassified emails that she admits to, at least some of which were subject to the federal records act but not sent to other .gov accounts over to state if no one had found out they were sitting on her private server?

This is leaving aside the inconvenient fact that the federal records act requires the sender to archive correspondence in addition to the receiver. Required with the very good reason that it makes FOI searches easier and more accurate. . The whole point, something you still fail to grasp, of which is to make public records accessible. Oh yea that damn tree thing again This makes hillaries contention that it's all right to withhold her emails because someone somewhere at state has the correspondence in their email account ridiculous. As a trained lawyer she knows this argument doesn't carry water, yet she has made it again and again. When I lived in texas they used to say "the man is pissing on my boots and telling me it's raining ". Hillary the rainmaker.

Which is the crux of the matter. Hillary is a lawyer who has spent her entire life working in or with government. She damn well what the law says and what was expected of her. Any argument, including all of yours, that she didn't is absurd. She has either worked very hard at avoiding doing what was expected like her emails or simply ignored what was improper and unseemly like mixing her political positions with clinton foundation business. Which is why my belief is that based on her entire record of public service she lacks the integrity to be president. If your value system or unquestioning blind devotion is such that technically legal and other people did it represents an acceptable level of integrity for president of the united states then so be it. A pretty pathetic set of expectations and values.

When will we be expecting an answer to my simple question asked time and time again that as a rabid hillary apologist you can't bring yourself to address?

bob2356 says

So the question of hillary's integrity to be president comes down the the basic third grader on the playground defence of nah,nah,nah, colin did it too, colin did it too. Perfect.

I predicted this.

marcus says

turtledove says

Is that the standard, now?

Very good. That will indeed be Bob's argument as soon as he realizes that Powell did (more or less) the same thing. But until then, he doesn't want to see it.

No the argument is that Hillary already had a server at home that she used prior to that, and when she tried to figure out whether continuing that would be a reasonable route to go in her new job as Sec. of State, she could consider

1) What did the previous people do ?

2) It would be way more secure than using the State Dept email servers for her non SCIF correspondence (90% of which was personal anyway).

Seems quite reasonable to me. Plus:

There are no guards, no red-black procedures, no construction rules, no special rooms, no TEMPEST, no TSCM. And most important: Until 2013, there was no rule against using them. In fact, the rules specifically allowed for them. Check out the relevant section in the Code of Federal Regulations (36 CFR Chapter XII, Subchapter B, section 1236.22b) for the rules regarding the use of personal email accounts by any State Department official.To give an idea of how insecure these communications could be, Powell’s personal email is an AOL account, and he used it on a laptop when he communicated with foreign officials and ambassadors, unless the information qualified for a SCIF. (Clinton sent only one email to a foreign dignitary through her personal account, and her communications with ambassadors were, for the most part, by phone.)

bob2356 says

When will we be expecting an answer to my simple question

The answer is, I don't know, and I don't care. Not even a little. She had them stored.

I would be willing to bet anything that with Kerry, and in the future Secretry's of State will have a few (or more) emails related to official business on their private email and it won't ever me submitted to the goverment. Will you be getting all emotional about this ? You know, becasue it's A LAW ?

bob2356 says

rabid hillary apologist

More like just a person who is capable of being objective. I don't like Hillary all that much, and worry that she's too much of a hawk for me to vote for her (but I will be voting for her over Trump). This email issue is a bunch of nonsense, and you sir are a gullible asshole, who thinks emotion is a substitute for an argument.

Nothing?
Funny but I don't hear saddam threatening daddy bush anymore...
bob2356 says

Cut Powell some slack: he was busy lying to the UN using bullshit evidence to kill our soldiers for nothing.

zzyzzx says

If Hillary were a republican, we would have never heard about the email issue, and Benghazi could have been blamed on congress, if it were democrats that were the ones responsible for denying the funding for sufficient security for embassies (and similar outposts).

The cartoon sort of works, in the sense that Scooter Libby actually went to jail.

On the other hand, there were those 5 million (or maybe 22 million - nobody knows) emails which disappeared from the White House email servers during the regime of General Rove, that nobody went to jail for.

And Benghazi has now been investigated for more extensively than 9-11, Valerie Plame, or the massive email erasure.

marcus says

No the argument is that Hillary already had a server at home that she used prior to that, and when she tried to figure out whether continuing that would be a reasonable route to go in her new job as Sec. of State

Really that was the argument? Then why did Pagliano (after initially pleading the 5th) testify that he set up the server for her after she was confirmed at sec of state? Oddly enough hillary claims she has no emails from her first day as sec of state until her server went on line 3 months later.I guess she didn't write to anyone for a while. Even more oddly she has claimed all along the server was at her house, yet the IP address was in manhattern.

marcus says

2) It would be way more secure than using the State Dept email servers for her non SCIF correspondence (90% of which was personal anyway).

If you keep repeating bullshit it doesn't make it true.

marcus says

I would be willing to bet anything that with Kerry, and in the future Secretry's of State will have a few (or more) emails related to official business on their private email and it won't ever me submitted to the goverment

There is just a little tiny bit of difference between a few and all. Not to you, but to normal humans.

marcus says

This email issue is a bunch of nonsense, and you sir are a gullible asshole, who thinks emotion is a substitute for an argument.

No, I am a person who understands what integrity and character means. Your litany of half truths, strawmen arguments, and misdirections let me know you don't have a clue what those words mean or why they matter either for yourself or your political candidates.

If I'm gullible then what is your buying hook line and sinker hillarys non stop endless series of ever changing excuses and totally implausible explanations called? Is there a term for far beyond gullible?

On the other hand hillary is going to have the coolest campaign slogan of the century.
1800/s tippacanoe and tyler too
1900's i like ike.
2000's i didn't get indicted.

IMO, the worst thing is not that Hillary used her own server and was slack in turning over emails. It's not even that Comey found 3000 work related emails that Clinton's team did not turn over. Based on what Comey has said, that appears to be a mistake. The worst thing is that there were 52 email chains with classified info on them. That's quite a lot. If all of those were in the 3000 that Clinton didn't turn over, that would also be bad, but that isn't consistent with Comey's statements. We also don't know how many of those were sent from HRC as opposed to received. If she were on the receiving end, and it were only a few, it wouldn't be that bad. But it was her show, so she should have come down hard on anyone who sent her classified info.

None of this rises to the level of incompetence of the Bush/Powell WMD fiasco. That doesn't excuse HRC, but it does make you wonder why one of those people was investigated over and over and over again.

Ironman says

So, Hillary's stream of lies regarding this whole situation doesn't bother you in the least?

So you are retarded and don't know what the difference between worst and only is?

Ironman says

So, if your neighbor goes and robs a bank, you'll use that rationale that it's OK for you to do it too?

So you are retarded and cannot read the second sentence in the two sentence paragraph to see what the point was?

bob2356 says

marcus says

I would be willing to bet anything that with Kerry, and in the future Secretry's of State will have a few (or more) emails related to official business on their private email and it won't ever me submitted to the goverment

There is just a little tiny bit of difference between a few and all. Not to you, but to normal humans.

bob2356 says

No, I am a person who understands what integrity and character means.

Okay, then help me out. Exactly how many non personal State Dept emails could a Secretary of State have on their personal email account without turning them over to the government to archive, while still retaining their character and integrity ?

I thought breaking the law was breaking the law, but now you're telling me it's about degree. Are different people going to have different numbers where they draw that line ?

By the way, speaking of degree, I also thought this was interesting.

To give an idea of how insecure these communications could be, Powell’s personal email is an AOL account, and he used it on a laptop when he communicated with foreign officials and ambassadors, unless the information qualified for a SCIF. (Clinton sent only one email to a foreign dignitary through her personal account, and her communications with ambassadors were, for the most part, by phone.)

bob2356 says

If I'm gullible then what is your buying hook line and sinker hillarys non stop endless series of ever changing excuses and totally implausible explanations called? Is there a term for far beyond gullible?

Hillary says it was a mistake. But when I look at the whole picture, the reasons I see are things like security, and what everyone did before her.

Where as you see a conniving sleazy attorney that you desperately want to find guilty of something and this is the very very best (or is it worst) thing you (and the right wing media) could come up with.

YesYNot says

None of this rises to the level of incompetence of the Bush/Powell WMD fiasco. That doesn't excuse HRC, but it does make you wonder why one of those people was investigated over and over and over again.

It does. She went out of her way to host emails on a private, unsecured, unencrypted server, deliberately in order to avoid reporting requirements.

She put political career ahead of security concerns, was grossly negligent in doing so, and therefore exercised horrendous judgement rendering her unfit for the chief Executive Leadership Position this country offers.

thunderlips11 says

deliberately in order to avoid reporting requirements.

This was not proven and makes no sense.

Ironman says

SPECIFICALLY said she set up the server to keep her personal email away from Federal oversight.

Her personal email never should have been on state Dept system and did not have reporting requirements. It's keeping her work email private that makes no sense. Email is not private in any way. There are plenty of private lines of communication. If she wanted to keep any work communication quiet, she could have just used something else.

YesYNot says

This was not proven and makes no sense.

It is proven. She never got approval, and she knew she was supposed to get it, according to the Inspector General's Report.

In one particularly scathing account, the report reveals that technology staffers who raised concerns about Clinton’s use of email in late 2010 were told to stop talking about it. One staffer was told their mission was “to support the Secretary” and “never to speak of the Secretary’s personal email again,” according to the report.

Another staffer warned that Clinton was sending and receiving emails that should be preserved to comply with open records laws. The staffer was told “that the Secretary’s personal system had been reviewed and approved by Department legal staff and that the matter was not to be discussed any further,” according to the report.

The inspector general’s office found no evidence that any such legal review had been done.

Here she is telling Huma to set up a separate email.

Hillary Clinton’s emails were in the spotlight again on Thursday, as the State Department confirmed to the Associated Press that she had failed to turn over a 2010 email where she discussed her personal account with her aide, Huma Abedin. The omission raises questions about what other emails were potentially missed.

From the AP:

The email was included within messages exchanged Nov. 13, 2010, between Clinton and one of her closest aides, Deputy Chief of Staff Huma Abedin. At the time, emails sent from Clinton's BlackBerry device and routed through her private clintonemail.com server in the basement of her New York home were being blocked by the State Department's spam filter. A suggested remedy was for Clinton to obtain a state.gov email account. "Let's get separate address or device but I don't want any risk of the personal being accessible," Clinton responded to Abedin. Clinton never used a government account that was set up for her, instead continuing to rely on her private server until leaving office.

This is one of the emails she never handed over; they got it from Huma. What other emails are out there? What about her deleted 'personal' emails?

"Trust me!" says Hillary.

You ain't seen nuthin' yet.

Ironman says

he KNEW how secure documents should he handled by CHOSE to place them (business, personal, Clinton Foundation) all on her own PERSONAL server.

Can't you see the obvious???

Yes. Out of 60000 emails, 100 or so went on the wrong one. Pretty bad, but thats not what i said. I said that using the server to keep work emails private makes no sense. Each email was stored on at least one other machine. That's at the very least, and it's not private.

BTW, Wikileaks just put up some Iraq Emails from Hillary's Sec State days. Just started browsing, I found this one:

https://wikileaks.org/clinton-emails/emailid/7094

Where a MIC contractor official is begging for the Scarlet Whore of Wall Street's help to get his money because an audit is taking a long time, via Sid Blumenthal. Also permission to stay in the Green Zone in 2011, because 'mission accomplished' means too much danger to stay outside Baghdad. Hillary voted YES on that War, and re-authorized it over and over again. $$$$$

Ironman says

It is when you control it on your own server.

No. It's not, unless it's encrypted. Even then, there is always a copy for the sender and receiver, so keeping it quiet requires a conspiracy. It's just not used in any way for privacy.

thunderlips11 says

Here she is telling Huma to set up a separate email.

I don't see the problem with her asking huma to send private emails on a private account. The problem is her getting other people to use private accounts for business emails. The other problem is that if state department can't put Clintons server on a spam white list, they shouldn't be running an email server.

YesYNot says

The other problem is that if state department can't put Clintons server on a spam white list, they shouldn't be running an email server.

Remember, no permission to do gov business on a private server, she never asked, as required. So she was willing to put communication at risk to keep her private server at all hazards.

30,000 emails were unilaterally declared personal and deleted. We only have her word they weren't work related.

Ironman says

? If I want to do a FOIA request on what YOU sent in your email,

Anyone could do that. You wouldn't, because you are to dumb/lazy. But any somewhat industrious person with half a brain could. So still not private.

thunderlips11 says

Remember, no permission to do gov business on a private server, she never asked.

First you said that she asked huma to get a private account was proof of her intent. It seems that it was too get around an over zealous spam filter. So back on topic... there is no proof that she did it to avoid reporting requirements.

marcus says

HydroCabron says

he was busy lying to the UN using bullshit evidence to kill our soldiers for nothing.

Good point. Which is what,..1,033,000 times more worthy of criticism than this email BS. But then he was just being a good soldier. Wasn't he also the one that said, "you break it, you own it ?"

But didn't Hillary vote for war in Iraq and the patriot act?

marcus says

Okay, then help me out. Exactly how many non personal State Dept emails could a Secretary of State have on their personal email account without turning them over to the government to archive, while still retaining their character and integrity ?

I thought breaking the law was breaking the law, but now you're telling me it's about degree. Are different people going to have different numbers where they draw that line ?

Spit many other hairs today? You said intent mattered. Now it doesn't when it wasn't convenient? There is a huge difference between missing something and deliberately hiding every single thing. Lame, really lame.

marcus says

Hillary says it was a mistake. But when I look at the whole picture, the reasons I see are things like security, and what everyone did before her.

Where as you see a conniving sleazy attorney that you desperately want to find guilty of something and this is the very very best (or is it worst) thing you (and the right wing media) could come up with.

The reading comprehension thing again. Where did you get this? I've said time and time again she committed no crime, she is far too clever for that. The FBI after spending many, many millions of dollars and god only knows how many thousands of man hours came to the same conclusion. Someone can lack character and ethics without actually breaking the law. Sorry that concept is still over your head. Since I have an above room temperature IQ I don't follow the right wing media, sorry to disappoint you. There is more than enough damning news in the regular media about hillary.

The security thing? Again you are beating this dead horse?

So let me get this straight in my mind how the security thing worked. First hillary claimed she lacked the skills to set up 2 email accounts on her blackberry so she had have someone set up a private server Why the same person couldn't just set up the blackberry with 2 email accounts is never explained. Then (and gentleman and then, sorry I just saw a great production of Pippin) as someone who has no IT training at all she was able to evaluate a gigantic, mutlinational, network with thousands of users and billions of dollars in hardware and software to determine the system was too insecure for her to use email on so she had to have someone set up a private server. How did she come to this realization? Woman's intuition? Did she have someone evaluate the system? Who was that and were is the evaluation? Oh right it is properly archived at the state department along with all of hillarys emails. Now that's funny.

Even better. Now hillary is sec of state with a gigantic network that is so insecure she can't trust it to do her email. At least according to you. She is the boss, the head honcho, the big cheese. So what does she do about this appalling situation? Absolutely nothing. No work groups, no evaluations, no budget requests, no reports to congress, no congressional hearings, no upgrades to the system, no changes to security, nada, zero, zilch. Hillarys concerns apparently didn't extend to doing anything about it. Maybe she wasn't concerned after all. "Oh no joe, say it ain't so"

You are really buying all of this? Seriously? My 6 year old doesn't buy this. Want to buy some swamp land in florida? Great investment opportunity that you shouldn't pass up. Think man, think use your brain. Just because you gave your heart to hillary doesn't mean you have to give her your mind and balls.

Ironman says

which one of the State Department servers or State Department backups would they access to get those emails?

Anyone could ask for emails between Hillary and huma. State could get them off of their servers. After reading those, you will see other people's email addresses in the header info. Then request those. It's not complicated. You could just start with a request for the email between HTC and each higher up in state and all ambassadors. Therefore, there is no privacy with the set up she chose.

She's a sleaze.

Therefore we should elect the Fat Birther Dick who lies like a rug, believes the Chinese handled Tiananmen Square the right way, and demands ID from the first black president.

bob2356 says

So let me get this straight in my mind how the security thing worked. First hillary claimed she lacked the skills to set up 2 email accounts on her blackberry so she had have someone set up a private server Why the same person couldn't just set up the blackberry with 2 email accounts is never explained. Then (and gentleman and then, sorry I just saw a great production of Pippin) as someone who has no IT training at all she was able to evaluate a gigantic, mutlinational, network with thousands of users and billions of dollars in hardware and software to determine the system was too insecure for her to use email on so she had to have someone set up a private server. How did she come to this realization? Woman's intuition? Did she have someone evaluate the system? Who was that and were is the evaluation? Oh right it is properly archived at the state department along with all of hillarys emails. Now that's funny.

This paragraph belongs to the best of Pat.net

Ironman says

How does the general public do a FOIA request on these THOUSANDS of work related emails that SHE deleted?

Stop changing the subject. You stated that the reason for her using a separate server for work email was to avoid people reading her work emails via the FOIA. Using a separate server may provide an inconvenience to people who want to read her email using FOIA, but it doesn't prevent them from doing so and doesn't provide HRC with any privacy.

Another topic: She deleted some work related emails. That was wrong. Was it intentional and done to hide some nefarious activity? Comey says no. I don't have access to those emails to see if they had more potentially damaging info, but Comey did, and he did not find that. If he did, then he would have gotten her for intent to destroy evidence. Perhaps they were mostly social emails with a work question thrown in. Who knows.

You go through hoops to try to prove her intentions for using a private email server, and fall on your face, because you cannot prove that. The ironic thing is that you are obsessed with HRC in the same way you complain about hydro or me being obsessed with Trump. The difference is that you are a broken record working with a limited set of transgressions and you are boring and trollish enough to spam Pat.net with the same lame pictures over and over.

Can they go back and get the 5 million emails that Bush deleted via the FOIA? No, they cannot. Did congress demand that the administration turn over all computers to the FBI so that those emails could be retrieved? Did they state that Bush was no longer fit to serve? Of course not. Is the canned ham a totally dishonest hypocritical asshole? Of course he is.

http://www.salon.com/2015/03/12/the_george_w_bush_email_scandal_the_media_has_conveniently_forgotten_partner/
http://www.politifact.com/punditfact/statements/2015/mar/15/juan-williams/media-reaction-george-w-bushs-email-controversy/

Ironman says

Perhaps they weren't, but if they were just social emails, why delete them. Was Chelsea's wedding or yoga schedules a matter of national security?

Everybody has the right to delete personal emails. Did the FBI go back and scour everybody else's hard drive to find out which emails they deleted and see if there were any mentions of work related items? Of course not.

Do you have any proof that there was anything incriminating in those 3000 emails of HRC? Of course not. You have no facts or FACTS for that matter to back up your claims.

Ironman says

Can you tell me again which State Dept server they would be found on?

Doesn't matter as it doesn't relate to intent. Also, many people accidentally delete the wrong email once in a while. I doubt there are any people who were perfect in this regard. If HRC were really trying to delete the emails, why not use software to really remove the information from the hard drive? Better yet, why not create a new server with a fresh drive, move over all of the emails you want to keep and destroy the old drive. The fact is, she deleted the email. She didn't destroy all evidence. It's like getting rid of a body and failing to clean up the blood. The intent you ascribe makes no sense.

Here's what Comey said directly about those 3000 emails and intent:

FBI investigators found no evidence that any work-related emails “were intentionally deleted in an effort to conceal them”, Comey said.

So you think Comey is either incompetent or a liar and somehow under Clinton's control. You are idiotman

YesYNot says

Everybody has the right to delete personal emails

Who checks to make sure they are personal, or is it a unilateral claim?

thunderlips11 says

Who checks to make sure they are personal, or is it a unilateral claim?

It's always a unilateral claim as far as I know. I've read that anyone can delete their personal emails even if they are on gov servers. There are probably hundreds of thousands if not more personal emails deleted from gov servers every day. No one is sitting behind them looking over their shoulders and trying to catch them.

You're an idiot. If she did destroy old hard drives, they wouldn't have gotten any emails. The Ironman says

lawyers cleaned their devices

The lawyers cleaned whose devices? Clinton's devices or the lawyers devices. They obviously didn't wipe the deleted emails.

Again:

FBI investigators found no evidence that any work-related emails “were intentionally deleted in an effort to conceal them”, Comey said.

Ironman says

Just an accidental press of the "delete" button... SEVERAL thousand times??

Lawyers did the deleting. They sifted through 60K emails in a limited amount of time. This has been stated over and over again. How you go from that to accidentally hitting a button 3000 times is what makes you special.

YesYNot says

Anyone could ask for emails between Hillary and huma. State could get them off of their servers.

YesYNot says

Using a separate server may provide an inconvenience to people who want to read her email using FOIA, but it doesn't prevent them from doing so

Trees, trees, all those damn trees. There must be a forest here somewhere.

The way the FOI is supposed to work is you should be able to ask for hillarys emails. Not have to ask for emails of everyone hillary might have sent emails to then look for the ones received from hillary. As a public servant it is incumbent upon hillary to facilitate the FOI act not do everything in her power to circumvent it. We are back to it's ok because it's technically legal again. Next step is colin did it.

"I didn't get indicted"
Hillary for president 2014.

Ironman says

At what point is Johnny guilty of stealing?

Technically, he's guilty of stealing the first time he took something he didn't pay for. Technically, it's stealing if you walk off with a pen at the bank. Sometimes you absentmindedly do so. Guess what? No one is going to prosecute you for it. Intent and to some extent size of the theft make a difference. Comey explained all of this. If you weren't indoctrinated, you would see that.

bob2356 says

The way the FOI is supposed to work is you should be able to ask for hillarys emails. Not have to ask for emails of everyone hillary might have sent emails to then look for the ones received from hillary. As a public servant it is incumbent upon hillary to facilitate the FOI act not do everything in her power to circumvent it.

If you are saying that the forest is that she should have archived her emails better for the FOI, we can all agree with you. Even Hillary does. All I've been arguing is that the intent that everyone on the right has ascribed to her doesn't make any sense. Her behavior doesn't fit with that intent. The facts don't support it. She turned over the vast majority of her work emails and the ones that she withheld were not any more incriminating than the others, so that appears to the investigators to be an honest mistake.

Ironman says

You're so focused on "intent", which isn't in the statute.

I'm focused on intent, b/c that's what I've been arguing about in this whole thread. That's it. B/t/w, I believe that willfully is the part of that law that helped Hillary out. It's worth quoting again:

FBI investigators found no evidence that any work-related emails “were intentionally deleted in an effort to conceal them”, Comey said.

So, it looks like she didn't break that law anyway. From a moral standpoint: It's the same thing as taking a pen out of a bank if you forget whose pen you are holding. Intent is important. It's the difference between murder and a fatal car accident.

Ironman says

LIED

Technically, lying requires saying what you know is untrue. Being wrong doesn't make someone a liar. That is fortunate for you. Otherwise, you'd be as bad as your fat cheeto hero. If the deleted emails were a mistake, it wasn't a lie. If she didn't remember sending classified emails on the wrong system, then her corresponding statement about that wasn't a lie. I know Hillary lies here and there like most politician. But, I don't know which if any of those things were lies (unlike you, I don't just fill in the unknowns with what I want to be true). The irony is that you can't even look at your cheeto hero and figure out he lies twice as often as Hillary. Sad.

For example, when Trump says that he will defend the 12th article of the constitution, that's not a lie. It's just ignorance. When he says that Mexico will pay for the wall and that the Mexican leaders are sending their bad guys over the border, those are lies. He's not that stupid.

Perhaps things work differently in Hillary's world..... But for anyone else, if you mix business and personal, you pierced the veil of protection for either. For example, if you use your business bank account to pay personal bills and your business gets sued.... You pierced the veil of protection that separates your business liability from personal liability. I remember a similar caution given my husband about his ex-wife. Be careful to keep business and personal separate or you risk everything being opened to discovery.

So why didn't she give up her right to personal privacy the moment she mixed business and personal emails? Are there any lawyers here who can explain why this is different? Because lawyers have repeatedly cautioned us against a very similar thing...

Ironman says

You can focus on your little dick for all we care.

Classic. You stopped even trying to connect your insults to anything at all.Ironman says

The question pertains did she willfully lie

You either don't know what intent is or don't know what willful means.

I've already answered this many times. I'll repeat:YesYNot says

FBI investigators found no evidence that any work-related emails “were intentionally deleted in an effort to conceal them”, Comey said.

Last time I pointed this out, you said I had a small dick, and asked why I was focused on intent, which you said wasn't in the statute. Now, you are saying it's all about intent. You make Trump look intelligent even when he is promising to defend the twelfth article of the Constitution.