patrick.net

YesYNot says

Obviously a .gov account was offered to her and was a possibility for her to use.

Not a possibility, mandatory. To use non-government emails for State Department business, she was required by the Record Law and State Department Policy to ask permission, which she never did.

She's Hillary, the law doesn't apply, and if you think it does, you're a member of the Right Wing Conspiracy and a Misogynist.

YesYNot says

I know what the difference is, but the preference is not clear. Securely setting up an email server is not trivial, but privacy is not guaranteed on a commercial service. Clearly the preference is to use .gov accounts, and let the correct people deal with security issues. But that wasn't on the list.

Irrelevant. Privacy/security on the email server is not the issue. Pop Quiz. Who do you think it would be easier for investigators to get a full set of records from. Choice a) commercial email servers like gmail, earthlink, yahoo, etc. Choice b) a private server hidden in the clintons house that no one ever knew about? That would be a server that once it was actually discovered after 6 years clinton herself personally decided which emails were relevant.

Tough choice. You can cheat and ask a friend if you need to.

Obama Admin hypocrisy - book thrown at lower level employees:

It turns out that at least two of the emails which traversed Hillary Clinton’s personal email account and server were “top secret,” according to the inspector general for the Intelligence Community as reported by McClatchy. To describe that as reckless is an understatement given that, as AP notes, “There is no evidence she used encryption to shield the emails or her personal server from foreign intelligence services or other potentially prying eyes.” The FBI has now taken possession of that server.

When it comes to low-level government employees with no power, the Obama administration has purposely prosecuted them as harshly as possible to the point of vindictiveness: It has notoriously prosecuted more individuals under the Espionage Act of 1917 for improperly handling classified information than all previous administrations combined.

NSA whistleblower Tom Drake, for instance, faced years in prison, and ultimately had his career destroyed, based on the Obama DOJ’s claims that he “mishandled” classified information (it included information that was not formally classified at the time but was retroactively decreed to be such). Less than two weeks ago, “a Naval reservist was convicted and sentenced for mishandling classified military materials” despite no “evidence he intended to distribute them.” Last year, a Naval officer was convicted of mishandling classified information also in the absence of any intent to distribute it.

In the light of these new Clinton revelations, the very same people who spent years justifying this obsessive assault are now scampering for reasons why a huge exception should be made for the Democratic Party front-runner. Fascinatingly, one of the most vocal defenders of this Obama DOJ record of persecution has been Hillary Clinton herself.

Unlike Hillary's several top secret emails sent on a private, unencyrpted, unsecured server in a bathroom, none of Manning's emails were Top Secret

YesYNot says

.bob2356 says

Simply not turning them over was technically not illegal until 2014. You were supposed to turn them over, but there was nothing in the statute that set a deadline to do it.

Ok then. You also agree it was not technically illegal. It was just tardy.

Being 6 years tardy is pretty bad. Since marcus wealsed out and passed on the question repeatedly I'll give you a shot at it. When do you think she would have actually delivered her emails to be archived, as required by law, if her hidden email server was never discovered? No fair using geologic time scales.

I've always agreed it was not technically illegal. Hillary spent a lot of time figuring it out how to circumvent the law while being not technically illegal.

So not technically illegal is the standard of integrity that you believe appropriate for the president of the country? That's certainly a high bar.

thunderlips11 says

Obama Admin hypocrisy - book thrown at lower level employees:

I can imagine this is the sort of thing that went down when Hitler was coming into power.

bob2356 says

Since marcus wealsed out

I didn't weasle out. I rested my case, on this:

marcus says

You can write an entire book. It doesn't make you look any less silly, if people simply consider the accepted fact that John Kerry is the first Secretary of State to not use a private email account for at least some of his or her official (State Department) business done by email.

And on your disproportionate emotion over the way Hillary handled some of her email. The most pathetic aspect of this is that you can't see how much of your out of proportion emotion and arrogance about this is purely political bias.

I stand by my position that it was a mistake, but not nearly as significant as you make it out to be. It doesn't reflect bad ethics or corruption, and it is not nearly as bad as a policy blunder (that is, as a factor in my voting decision).

Is one of the sources of your out of proportion emotion on this that you are trying to muster up enough of a reason to vote for Trump ?

bob2356 says

So not technically illegal is the standard of integrity that you believe appropriate for the president of the country?

With respect to how one handles emails ? Yes. It's just slightly worse than taking home office supplies. Actually, maybe not worse, because that is technically unethical, unless the supplies are only used for work that you take home.

Of course not. That's what lawyers are for

-----------

Oh dear

Are these people actually allowed to vote?

No wonder people say we're fucked

marcus says

bob2356 says

Since marcus wealsed out

I didn't weasle out.

Then answer the really simple question. You've had 4 chances already. When do you think hillary would have complied with the law if no one had discovered her secret email server? Another 6 years? 10 years? 20 years?

marcus says

I stand by my position that it was a mistake

Pretty seriously proactive and carefully planned "mistake". I think the only mistake that happened was she got caught.

marcus says

bob2356 says

So not technically illegal is the standard of integrity that you believe appropriate for the president of the country?

With respect to how one handles emails ?

Irrelevant once again. Wow, the best tap dance I've seen since fred astaire. Damn, it's all those pesky trees again. There must be a forest here somewhere. No not with respect to how one handles emails. The standard of integrity with respect to how well one complies with the spirit as well as the letter of the law. Actually not one law, 4 different federal laws. Pretty amazing you can't address or acknowledge what the overall issue is, never mind make any kind of meaningful argument about it.

marcus says

Is one of the sources of your out of proportion emotion on this that you are trying to muster up enough of a reason to vote for Trump ?

Nice try at misdirection. If you can't defend your position impugn the other persons motives.

No I would never vote for trump, he is totally and completely temperamentally unsuited for any elected office of any kind. Hillary is ethically unsuited for elected office. I had decided that long before emailgate. My opinion was formed watching hillary totally inappropriately, although once again technically legally, (anyone see pattern here) mixing the clinton foundation business with being sec of state. FWIW I voted for hillary in her 2000 senate run. It's what she has done as a public servant since then that presents the problem for me now. Hillary serves hillary, not the people.

I'm going to be making a third party protest the system vote this election. There is no emotion involved in this decision at all. Unless having a firm belief in candidates possessing integrity and good character, at least as well as these terms can be applied to politicians, is an emotional issue. I take voting very seriously, throwing away my vote not a lightly taken choice. This choice is solely derived from my observations and analysis of the actions and history of both candidates. You are the one so emotionally involved in being a hillary apologist you refuse to address issue after issue. Instead you reply time and time again with irrelevant trivialities either through blind devotion to hillary or a complete inability to grasp the larger issues and why they matter.

bob2356 says

Hillary is ethically unsuited for elected office. I had decided that long before emailgate.

Really ? I'm shocked. SHOCKED I tell you. Who could have guessed that you weren't capable of looking at this email issue objectively.

If HIllary was nervous about email privacy, it would seem that proved justified in a weird way. Although obviously far more secrecy would have been protected had she kept them on State Dept Servers.

http://www.breitbart.com/tech/2016/07/04/wikileaks-releases-clinton-war-emails/

bob2356 says

Choice a) commercial email servers like gmail, earthlink, yahoo, etc. Choice b) a private server hidden in the clintons house that no one ever knew about?

I'm pretty sure that if she deleted emails from gmail, earthlink, etc. then 6 years later, no one would be getting those emails. If the gov wanted to get the emails bad enough in real time (while she were working there), they could have gotten the ones from her server too. The thing is, no one cared enough to do that at the time even though clearly everyone who had her email address knew what she was doing.

bob2356 says

That would be a server that once it was actually discovered after 6 years clinton herself personally decided which emails were relevant.

This part is bullshit. IIRC, the domain was something like clintons.com. Whatever it was, it is trivial for the gov to figure out where the server is without asking Clinton. Do you really think this was a big secret all those years?

thunderlips11 says

We only have Hillary's word they were personal.

Since each email starts somewhere and goes to somewhere else the only ones that could have been secretly deleted are those going from her to another government official or to someone else in the US using a private server. Plus, they would have to collude about each email to delete. I have not heard that any such conspiracy has occurred. Plus, emails are not secure in the first place. Anyone really paranoid would have to be encrypting messages, which she wasn't doing.

bob2356 says

When do you think she would have actually delivered her emails to be archived, as required by law, if her hidden email server was never discovered? No fair using geologic time scales.

She was probably going to wait until she was prodded. Perhaps it wasn't a top priority thing for her. Perhaps, she wanted to sift through and delete the personal ones.

I've always said that her decision to commingle personal and public business was stupid. The rest of us don't do that. She has infinite resources, and it wouldn't have been hard for her to fit a different colored blackberry in her pantsuit.

I'm personally willing to let the FBI decide if it was illegal.

errc says

Oh dear

Are these people actually allowed to vote?

Would you defend yourself in a murder case? If not, you probably agree with me. If so, you are an idiot.

marcus says

If HIllary was nervous about email privacy, it would seem that proved justified in a weird way.

This is why I've said emails are not secure or private in any way. If you care about privacy, encryption is the only way to go. She obviously did not use encryption, and her private server did not provide any privacy or secrecy, which pretty much removes any nefarious motive.

DieBankOfAmericaPhukkingDie says

Except this was the mechanism by which she delivered state secrets to the PRC Army, the Russians and various numbers of her sponsors.

And provided Blankfein with hours of operation of the SoS glory hole.

bob2356 says

When do you think hillary would have complied with the law if no one had discovered her secret email server? Another 6 years? 10 years? 20 years?

I will tell you my opinion on this, if you will answer this question. How do you reconcile your outrage and indignation about Hillary's emails with this fact ?

marcus says

the accepted fact that John Kerry is the first Secretary of State to not use a private email account for at least some of his or her official (State Department) business done by email.

anonymous says

extremely careless

Good quality for a Prez, don't you think.

Billfuck sucked Loretta Lynchs dick, and they got Obama to agree to funnel some more of our Nations valuable information to Huma Abedin, so that she can pass it along to her Saudi family, promising that it will reach ISIS.

It's a small price to pay, to sweep another Clinton transgression under the rug

Why did Hillary host on a private server? She's already explained why:

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/video/hillary-clinton-2000-wanted-email-29397129

Anti-Transparency. She put American National Security at risk for political purposes.

YesYNot says

bob2356 says

That would be a server that once it was actually discovered after 6 years clinton herself personally decided which emails were relevant.

This part is bullshit. IIRC, the domain was something like clintons.com. Whatever it was, it is trivial for the gov to figure out where the server is without asking Clinton. Do you really think this was a big secret all those years?

Irrelevant. Where the documents were stored has no bearing on whether she turned them over or not. Why would anyone go looking for her server or even know she was hosting a private server? . Everyone would assume that a secretary of state would be archiving their correspondence as required by law. She certainly could have used a commercial email service and done the same thing. Using her own server just gave her that much more control and privacy. Something hillary is fanatical to the point of psychotic about.

marcus says

bob2356 says

When do you think hillary would have complied with the law if no one had discovered her secret email server? Another 6 years? 10 years? 20 years?

I will tell you my opinion on this, if you will answer this question. How do you reconcile your outrage and indignation about Hillary's emails with this fact ?

marcus says

the accepted fact that John Kerry is the first Secretary of State to not use a private email account for at least some of his or her official (State Department) business done by email.

I refuse to believe anyone with such a low comprehension level and complete inability to grasp the subject matter could possibly be a teacher. Lets go over this really slowly and carefully. I will try to type as slowly as possible and use very small words. Obviously all my prior attempts to explain the issues were made at a level considerably beyond your reading comprehension abilities. My error.

I have NO outrage or indignation ( you used those 2 big words so I'm going to think you know what they mean, maybe) at all about emails, hillary's or anyone else. It doesn't matter if hillary or kerry or any other sec of state used emails or made marks (this is called scribing, I will try to improve your vocabulary ((that means how many words you know)) as we go along) on wet clay with a sharp stick (either way. email or clay, it is called correspondence). What matters is what she did with what she wrote (this is called content) after she wrote it. The content (see previous sentence) in whatever form needs to be turned over to the federal government (that is who hillary works for) and put away somewhere (that's called archived) so the people (that's called the public) can look at them if they want to. This is a rule made by the government (this is called a law).. Kerry followed that very simple rule. Hillary didn't. Hillary kept the content of her correspondence (see previous sentence for both words) to herself on her private server (this is a place emails are kept) for 6 years until someone found out they were there but never turned over. If she had used clay tablets instead of emails and hid them in a shed in her back yard I would be just as outraged (that means not happy with what she did).. The issue is the content, not the medium

So there is absolutely nothing to reconcile other than why you can't understand simple declarative sentences.

If you can find a moment to tear yourself away from masturbating to pictures of hiillary in orange jumpsuits feel free to offer your opinion on when hillary would have actually turned over the content of her correspondence, emails or clay tablets, to be archived as required by law(s) if someone hadn't discovered they had not yet been turned over after 6 years. Some type of basis supporting whatever conjecture you come up with would be nice, but I think the odds of world peace are considerably better than you producing anything to support it. I'll be waiting and waiting and waiting and waiting.

Ornathal James Simpson was cleared of the Ron and Nicole murders

Mozillo was cleared of fraud in Countrywide

I would never vote for either of them for any public office either

bob2356 says

marcus says

the accepted fact that John Kerry is the first Secretary of State to not use a private email account for at least some of his or her official (State Department) business done by email.

I refuse....

I didn't quote your full answer, but I feel like if you could answer it well, you would, instead of spending a couple hundred words making a fool out of yourself with ad hominem.

You didn't answer the question. Previously you argued that these rules Hillary didn't follow go back to 1954 (?). Email has existed since the mid 90s, even if John McCain still doesn't use it.

Let me rephrase the question in a way you might better understand.

If almost everyone has used email a lot since the mid 90s or so, certainly since the late nineties, and if John Kerry is the first Secretary of State to exclusively use the State Dept Servers for all of his emails, then why aren't you railing against Madeline Albright, Collin Powel, Condoleezza Rice ? They too did significant amounts of their State Dept business on private email accounts. (edit: after checking - Albright did little to no email, and Rice didn't do a lot (supposedly))

If you can not understand the question, or if you can not answer it, or if it just really bothers you, why don't you spend a few hundred words talking down to me. Hey, it's better than losing the argument. Maybe readers will think you confidently calling me an idiot means that I am. I don't give a fuck. I already know that you don't have the intellectual honesty or integrity to answer the question.

bob2356 says

Everyone would assume that a secretary of state would be archiving their correspondence as required by law.

She turned them over within two years of leaving office. Not timely, but not something to get super worked up about.

YesYNot says

She turned them over within two years of leaving office

Collin Powell deleted his emails on a private account, but they were recovered much much later, and explored to find
that there was classified info in some of his emails on private account as well. But you know, in his case it was different
because:

1) It was just a private email account not his very own server that he was using for encryption or whatever (and to
archive).

2) He's not a conniving sleazy attorney, so in his case it was just an honest oversight - no big deal anyway.

marcus says

If almost everyone has used email a lot since the mid 90s or so, certainly since the late nineties, and if John Kerry is the first Secretary of State to exclusively use the State Dept Servers for all of his emails, then why aren't you railing against Madeline Albright, Collin Powel, Condoleezza Rice ? They too did significant amounts of their State Dept business on private email accounts. (edit: after checking - Albright did little to no email, and Rice didn't do a lot (supposedly))

No I cannot answer your question because it is a meaningless question. No amount of intellectual honesty or integrity can overcome that problem. You are the only one here that doesn't understand that.

Email in and of itself is irrelevant (that means it doesn't matter). Let's repeat that. Having hillary correspondence in email form is IRRELEVANT. The rules apply to the CONTENT of correspondence not the medium. The rules apply to email, snail mail, papyrus rolls, clay tablets, sky writing, cave paintings, drawings in the sand, morse code, heliograph, smoke signals, drums, whatever. The rules could go back to 1776 it wouldn't matter. They aren't rules about email, they are rules about correspondence in any form. Are you really that incapable of conceptualizing such a simple thought?

Why am I not railing against albright, rice, kerry, etc, .etc,etc.? Because THEY FOLLOWED THE FUCKING RULES. It has nothing, nada, zip, cipher, zero to do with them using or not using email. They turned over their official correspondence. in whatever form it existed in, to the state department to be archived. Hillary didn't until she was caught.

YesYNot says

bob2356 says

Everyone would assume that a secretary of state would be archiving their correspondence as required by law.

She turned them over within two years of leaving office. Not timely, but not something to get super worked up about.

Leaving office is irrelevant. The rule is now 60 days. She was in office 4 years. That means up to 6 years old. That is far beyond not timely. Shall we take another shot at this? When do you think she would have turned them over is she hadn't got caught? Simple question asked yet again. and again and again.

bob2356 says

The rule is now 60 days.

Is that what it was for Powell? Did he follow that standard even if it wasn't a rule? Did the FBI look through his trash at work and at home to see if there were any shredded documents or crumpled up post it notes and cross reference that with what he turned in?

If not, how do you know he followed the rules?

bob2356 says

Email in and of itself is irrelevant (that means it doesn't matter)

I get a kick out of you using condescension as a substitute for an argument. If you don't like my perspective you say it's irrelevant. Did nobody ever tell you that condescension and empty assertions are not in and of themself a legitimateargument. In this thread you have contradicted yourself at least seven times.

And then when you have less of a leg to stand on, you start thinking that calling me an idiot is an argument.

bob2356 says

Email in and of itself is irrelevant (that means it doesn't matter). Let's repeat that. Having hillary correspondence in email form is IRRELEVANT. The rules apply to the CONTENT of correspondence not the medium. The rules apply to email, snail mail, papyrus rolls, clay tablets, sky writing, cave paintings, drawings in the sand, morse code, heliograph, smoke signals, drums, whatever. The rules could go back to 1776 it wouldn't matter.

bob2356 says

Why am I not railing against albright, rice, kerry, etc, .etc,etc.? Because THEY FOLLOWED THE FUCKING RULES. It has nothing, nada, zip, cipher, zero to do with them using or not using email. They turned over their official correspondence. in whatever form it existed in, to the state department to be archived.

Powell actually did not follow rules any more than Hillary did. In fact he deleted his emails.

We already knew that Secretary Colin Powell exclusively used an outside, personal e-mail account to conduct State Department business. The report confirmed that Powell “did not retain those emails or make printed copies.”

Powell’s team, like Clinton’s, has said he believed his emails could be found by searching the accounts of the State Department staffers who received them, an idea that is sharply criticized in this report.

The State Department has continued to look for Powell’s emails, requesting to connect with his Internet service provider. But, the inspector general wrote, as of May 2016, the department has not received a response from Powell or his staff.

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/rundown/5-things-you-might-have-missed-in-the-clinton-email-report/

Calm down and look in to. And stop being such an asshole. You say you aren't outraged or indignant. What do you call your tone then ? Mental illness ?

YesYNot says

If not, how do you know he followed the rules?

Is that the standard, now? People who commit crimes aren't responsible if others haven't been caught for the same exact crime at some point in the past? Is this the new philosophical question... If a law is broken for the first time in a forest and no one is there to witness it....

The law is missing lots of specifics. I don't think it says anything about throwing people into wood chippers.... I guess that must not be murder.

marcus says

Collin Powell deleted his emails on a private account, but they were recovered much much later, and explored to find

that there was classified info in some of his emails on private account as well. But you know, in his case it was different

because:

1) It was just a private email account not his very own server that he was using for encryption or whatever (and to

archive).

2) He's not a conniving sleazy attorney, so in his case it was just an honest oversight - no big deal anyway.

I posted about this on another thread. No, powell should not have deleted. He used a private email account in addition to his .gov account, not as his exclusive email. His private email was done on a laptop on his desk with the full knowledge of the state department and supported by state department tech staff. His regular state department .gov computer was right next to it. Powell did a small percentage of his official correspondence by email because a lot less people had emails in 2001. He says the private emails were mostly staff administrative emails, but even so they should have been retained. He was wrong but his intent and scope of usage cannot be compared to hillary in any way shape or form.

Nice misdirection though. Damn those apples look a lot like oranges.

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.

And no, that isn't the standard or argument. What it is though is this : If Bob doesn't find Powell just as bad, then it gives insight as to why Bob's mental illness is acting up.

But also, it could lend credence to Hillary's feeling that she wasn't doing things much different than her predecessors.

Being a more logical and clear reasoning person than Bob, I am not so quick to judge. Maybe for a chief diplomat, having everything you put in an email there for everyone and posterity to read is inconvenient is some ways. I guess if I were more of a know it all simpleton like Bob (even if I wasn't in the middle of some kind of embarrassing hissy fit), maybe I would be better at arrogantly judging what it's like to be Secretary of State.

bob2356 says

He was wrong but his intent and scope of usage cannot be compared to hillary in any way shape or form.

This is total bullshit.

A majority of Hillary's correspondence was also done through a secure system - I don't know that it would be called email (what internet protocol is used).

You can read about it here. Good details on how their correspondence works, although you won't like the authors perspective, you will see bias, and "irrelevance" relative to to the insights and truth that God bestows on you (or is it the voices in your head ?). I prefer logic and solid reasoning - what can I say.

http://www.newsweek.com/2016/02/19/colin-powell-emails-hillary-clinton-424187.html

Start with this: Powell and Rice, like all modern secretaries of state, each had at least two email accounts—one personal and the other for communications designated as highly classified at the time of their creation . For classified information, both of them—and their aides with appropriate clearance—had a sensitive compartmented information facility, or what is known in intelligence circles as a SCIF. Most senior officials who deal with classified information have a SCIF in their offices and their homes.

These are not just extra offices with a special lock. Each SCIF is constructed following complex rules imposed by the intelligence and defense communities. Restrictions imposed on the builders are designed to ensure that no unauthorized personnel can get into the room, and the SCIF cannot be accessed by hacking or electronic eavesdropping. A group called the technical surveillance countermeasures team (TSCM) investigates the area or activity to check that all communications are protected from outside surveillance and cannot be intercepted.

Most permanent SCIFs have physical and technical security, called TEMPEST. The facility is guarded and in operation 24 hours a day, seven days a week; any official on the SCIF staff must have the highest security clearance. There is supposed to be sufficient personnel continuously present to observe the primary, secondary and emergency exit doors of the SCIF. Each SCIF must apply fundamental red-black separation to prevent the inadvertent transmission of classified data over telephone lines, power lines or signal lines.I could keep going for thousands and thousands of words explaining the security measures used for SCIFs. And all of this— all of this—is designed to protect the confidentiality of emails and communications determined to be classified at the time of transmission.

marcus says

Powell actually did not follow rules any more than Hillary did. In fact he deleted his emails.

I didn't mention powell, look at the list. I didn't want to get into a double debate about powell. See my posting above. Powell didn't use a private email exclusively. You article is flat out wrong. I read the OIG report when it came out, you could also if you tried. Powell was wrong to delete even if it was just administrative emails. That should have been determined by the archival staff.

Powell did not do more or less the same as hillary thing at all. They are very different issues.

bob2356 says

Powell did not do more or less the same as hillary thing at all. They are very different issues.

Because you need them to be ? Yes, he didn't have his own server. We don't even know the reason Hillary had her own. But the speculation is it had to do with security and encryption.

turtledove says

Is that the standard, now?

I was replying to Bob who claimed that Hillary was unique. I'm disputing that.

Also, the answer is that yes how other people commonly behave changes how laws are enforced and how people are perceived for breaking them. I don't hold you in contempt for speeding, and would not think it would be fair if you got singled out and received a ticket for every timed you were going 5mph over the speed limit over the last 20 years. Obviously Hillary's transgressions were worse than speeding, but how other people in her position behave is important in judging her behavior.

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

bob2356 says

Powell didn't use a private email exclusively

NEITHER DID HILLARY !!!

marcus says

This is total bullshit.

A majority of Hillary's correspondence was also done through a secure system - I don't know that it would be called email (what internet protocol is used).

You can read about it here. Good details on how their correspondence works, although you won't like the authors perspective, you will see bias, and "irrelevance" relative to to the insights and truth that God bestows on you (or is it the voices in your head ?). I prefer logic and solid reasoning - what can I say

Total bullshit. I know how the correspondence works. SCIF is the system for sending CLASSIFIED documents. There are plenty of unclassified documents subject to FRA,NACA,FOI. So the 55,000 emails hillary sent to state were the minority of her emails? How many were the majority? Got a number? How did you determine it was the majority? Another question that will never be answered.

marcus says

bob2356 says

Powell didn't use a private email exclusively

NEITHER DID HILLARY !!!

Hillary used private email exclusively for unclassified documents. Powell didn't. Want to split any more hairs?

bob2356 says

Hillary used private email exclusively for unclassified documents. Powell didn't. Want to split any more hairs?

If she hadn't used her private email for the emails she did, or gmail type private email, she had two primary choices. Either use the SCIF system, or use a state department (essentially private) email account that would have been FAR less secure than her home server email was.

In addition to the classified email system used in SCIFs, there are personal email accounts. 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 . 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.)

I'm now going to model for you, how to admit when you're wrong.

bob2356 says

How many were the majority? Got a number?

I was wrong . It probably wasn't a majority that were on the SCIF. But virtually all of the classified and most all of the semi-classified, maybe most of the work related emails. Actually, I may have been right based on what follows, but it doesn't matter.

But you're a wrong in what you state as well.

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/