Those 650,000 Newly Found Clinton-Related Emails Could Take Weeks To Review

Submitted by: fancylad 11 months ago in Funny
huma-hill-weiner

In another investigation last week, the FBI found whopping 650,000 pieces of email on Anthony Weiner's laptop that are of interesting to the ongoing probe of Hillary Clinton's private servers. 650,000 individual pieces of email on one laptop? Either everyone on Clinton's team CCs everyone on everything or Weiner was going crazy on hook-up sites.

The FBI claims it could take weeks to go over every piece of mail, meanwhile, the presidential election is nine days away -- nine days.

Meanwhile, Politico says that the recent news of this latest batch of found emails hasn't hurt Clinton's small lead. According to an online poll of 1,772 likely voters, Clinton leads Trump 46 percent to 43 percent in a two-way race, and 42 percent to 39 percent in a four-way race, with Libertarian nominee Gary Johnson at 7 percent and the Green Party’s Jill Stein at 5 percent.

There are 62 comments:
Male 1,687
The thing about this that pisses me off so much is if this had been put before a Grand Jury there is a good chance that it would have been found before. With proper warrants the FBI would have kicked down doors and sleazed every computer that looked like it might have info on it. The FBI never even went to Hillary's house they what'd till she delivered her e-mail server. And had to make deals to get just a few others and promised not to look for other illegal things that might have been committed. And this makes me laugh, destroy them when they were though with them.
0
Reply
Male 2,694
Might very well have a President under criminal investigation from the get go. Jolly good stuff for the country that.
0
Reply
Male 4,153
My guess is Huma better start getting used to the view from under the bus.
0
Reply
Male 626
That's almost 500 emails a day since she became Sec O' State. Ain't nobody got time for that! Hell, probably 20% of them are about enlarging penis size, and that's only the ones from Anthony Weiner. (Sorry, took the easy joke on that one.)
0
Reply
Male 4,153
She's being fucked by a big ole weiner and didn't even get kissed.
0
Reply
Male 1,073
I was waiting for a NY Post headline: Hillary F***ed by Weiner
0
Reply
Male 1,798
^^This is the only useful comment on this whole post...^^
0
Reply
Male 40,772
Kind of the opposite of Bill eh? he got 'kissed' (down there) but rarely fucked them... just jizzed on their blue dresses...
0
Reply
Male 3,147
No 5Cats...... he didn't just jizz on their blue dresses.......... he came in their hair too. But they washed that. And yet kept the crusty, jizz-stained dress......... for sentimental reasons. Hillary overlooked it for two simple reasons............ she loves him.... unconditionally. Aaaaaannnnd......... she craves power even more than he ever did. Whatever the vote this time around... the world loses a little. This bout isn't about who can make the biggest positive change to the US....... it's about who will do less harm to it for four years until someone better comes along.
0
Reply
Male 40,772
Lolz! You are correct in all cases Listypoos! Nice to see you back 'home' eh? Cherry Girl Cafe Safe!
0
Reply
Male 4,950
Really. Anthony Weiner: the gift that keeps on giving.
0
Reply
Male 40,772
It's just a rumour, but highly placed people are openly talking about a REALLY BIG crime revealed inside the Weiner e-mails, and it's Hillary directly linked to it. Video Report Here That's not an un-biased source, but WHAT source remains "unbiased" this year? Certainly not the MSM, none of them, not even Fox...
0
Reply
Male 4,950
Ay yi yi. C'mon, 5Cats: Do we really need to go screaming down the Rumor Hole? It's rampant speculation like this that makes people roll their eyes over a lot of your posts. The recently discovered emails are, potentially, big news. Or they could be a big Nothing Burger. We're all just going to have to wait and see. That sucks, I know--but going bonkers with rumors doesn't help.
0
Reply
Male 40,772
I clearly labeled it as rumour, you have a problem with that? Does honesty offend you or something? >>> These Weiner e-mails ALONE by their very existence constitute a number of crimes that were NOT covered by the original server investigation. No 'double jeopardy' involved here, no excuses I can imagine are possible. And I have a great imagination! Hillary's response so far is: 'this breaks protocol and therefor should not be allowed'. THIS! From a woman who DELIBERATELY spent 4 YEARS disregarding every protocol in the State Department Rulebook? Deplorable!
0
Reply
Male 4,950
Yes, that's exactly it: Honesty offends me. ~rolls eyes~
0
Reply
Male 4,950
@5Cats: Now you're just being a crybaby. Just two weeks ago (October 14, 2016 at 5:21 pm, to be exact), I protested when another IAB'er launched an over-the-top attack on  you. .... And regarding this whole "Woe is me!" rant of yours, you put yourself on the frontlines by choice, with more partisan, no-holds-barred content than anyone. No one on this website is as relentlessly obsessed with partisan politics than you and you make no secret of that. It stands to reason that you're going to attract attention, and some of that attention is going to be critical. It goes with the territory. So either learn to take the electricity better or stop standing in the middle of the field with a lightning rod.
0
Reply
Male 40,772
And so the dozens of times rumours, gossip, unfounded accusations, blatantly false information and just plain propaganda are spread by the various trolls, liberals and IAB Brigade members (sorry to be triple redundant there), you've POPPED right in and chastised them, right? Oh yes, they get equal treatment by you, for sure! Why, right here in this thread you... oh no, you ONLY criticise and insult me, never them. But it was just the other day you called out... or was it a few weeks ago? Months? NEVER?? You've never once done the same to 'the other side' dude. So stuff it in your tree-hole with your nuts, I'm not buying that rotten acorn. :-p
0
Reply
Male 4,950
@5cats: No ESP expected or required. I criticized you for spreading rumors. That's it, and that's a criticisim I stand by. What you don't seem to be understanding is that even if you say, "Here's a rumor," and then tell the rumor, you're still spreading rumors. Just the same as way in that saying, "Here's a racist joke: A dirty Jew goes into a store..." doesn't make telling the joke OK. Spreading rumors is spreading rumors, regardless of whether you post a disclaimer before doing so. I think I'm about done with this thread: Either you can accept criticism or you can't and I'm getting the sense it's the latter.
0
Reply
Male 40,772
Squrlz4? When you see a bunch of people attacking me (not discussing the topic! fuck no! just plain attack!) and you JOIN THEM just what am I supposed to think of your motives? >>> I CLEARLY say "if there is..." and also that is a rumour from a biased source, and you still join the rest in pissing? Again, what am I supposed to think? All the trolls and hate-mongers are being assholes, as they always are, but squrlz4 is just making jokes, this time? Even though it's identical to what they are doing? :-/ Sorry, it's NF2 that has the 'Medallion of ESP' and can tell other what they think better than they can! Not me.
0
Reply
Male 4,950
@PentaPuss: *sigh* I most definitely do not harbor any hatred of you. There is no one on this site I hate. Generally speaking, I find you affable, if more than a little obsessed with politics. I did squirt a little urine on your comment, that I'll cop to, but I think it deserved it. No one knows what's in those emails. For all we know, they may simply be copies of the emails that have already been reviewed. Spreading rumors about some imagined "REALLY BIG crime" (your words, verbatim) isn't helpful in the least.
0
Reply
Male 40,772
So Squrlz4, you just piss on my comment, but have no valid reason to do so? Other than your hatred of me? Just to be clear eh? >>>And Markus? Where in this thread have I 'misinformed'? You claim I got the facts about handling classified materials wrong, but failed to mention WHAT it was that was wrong! Never mind how it was wrong or what the correct information is. You just made a claim and provided useless information, so it is not only baseless, I don't even know what your claim IS... this isn't ABOUT READING IT FFS! It's about sending, receiving and storing it LEGALLY. None of which Hillary did.
0
Reply
Male 4,950
 
0
Reply
Male 4,950
LOL! Well, thank you! I'm honored to have a part in spooking your neighborhood's little ones. I've been joining in the festivities locally as well (pic below).
0
Reply
Male 5,027
Hey Squirlz. Thought you'd like to know that along with the bloody hand prints we put on our sliding door this year, we painted two bloody squirrel prints down low for our squirrel buddy.
0
Reply
Male 5,027
IAB's chief misinformer asking if honesty offends you. That's hilarious.
0
Reply
Male 6,077
I'd be pretty surprised if there are actually that many emails stored on a laptop. Takes an awful lot of memory.
0
Reply
Male 3,649
Right now I'm doing IT work for a company that uses Microsoft Outook to archive their emails so that they are off their server. On average, 3000 - 4000 emails is equivalent to about a gigabyte of data; now, that's including attachments, embedded documents, and other such things. Now if we assume that her documents are far larger than what I'm dealing with (copies of Bills sitting on Capitol Hill are much larger than the average document), we can approximate that her collective emails could come to about 200 - 250 gigabytes of data.
0
Reply
Male 40,772
Hi DuckBoy! Glad some people are finally discussing the TOPIC for a change! Eh? If Hillary's previous batches of E-mails are any indication (and they are!) the vast majority of them are 2-3 sentences long and feature lots of abbreviations :-) While some few may have large attachments? I think all 55K of Hillary's mail could fit on a 2TB drive with room to spare. >>> That said, this is Weiner's comp, and only some (not known yet how many! squrlz4 are you reading this part?) belong to Abedin/Hillary. So a great many of his personal e-mails will have pictures of his penis, him naked, his butt and various other 'erotic' things eh? :->> Why would the FBI tell a LIE about the number of personal e-mails (not all belong to her) on a suspect's comp? That's Hillary's best defence so far? The FBI is lying?
0
Reply
Male 1,138
Not really.  I mean, I just stopped and looked at some of my work e-mails, stored on my PC via outlook, and even the ones with fairly decent sized .pdfs attached with entire vendor catalogs and prices and none of them break 4MB.  Most are much much smaller, many being only a few kb.  If we assume the average size of an e-mail to be even 500kb(which is pretty large for text only, maybe a couple images in the e-mails), 650,000 e-mails would only be about 325GB, not even one quarter of a 2TB drive.
0
Reply
Male 40,772
Don't modern laptops come with 2TB? That's peanuts these days. How much room does an e-mail require? 1MB? Lolz!! A hell of a lot less than that my friend... 2TB = 2,000,000 x 1MB e-mails... two million gigantic e-mails. So no, it's FAR from 'that many' it's a tiny chunk of memory.
0
Reply
Male 6,077
Maybe. I know I recently had to delete a number of old emails from my system recently because we were nearing the limit. we had nowhere near that number. It is an old system, though and, of course, I have no idea what Weiner/Abedin have.
0
Reply
Male 40,772
Correct, I'm glad you're being sensible (and polite) again broiz. We don't know, but WHY would the FBI tell a LIE about something as meaningless as that? Also: maybe he DID delete some, maybe most of them? They could have been recovered, yes? That still counts as him having them 'on his drive' yes? And see NetTech's descriptions for handling classified information. If even one single classified item is on this comp? That's a serious crime, deliberate and intentional. People go to jail for that sort of thing, yes?
0
Reply
Male 704
No wonder it took her so long to turn over the email server. It takes a long time to delete 650,000 emails, now think about this, it is emails to just one person. How many others are out there?
0
Reply
Male 40,772
THIS scandal is from Abedin Huma (Hillary's right-hand woman, found in tens of thousands of Hillary's e-mails) ill-fated husband Anthony Weiner. Yes, that one, he did it again. He's being investigated for sexting & sending obscene pictures (of himself) to A CHILD. Knowing she was under-age the entire time. HIS laptop was seized and all those e-mails recovered. Now, not all of them are from Hillary! Lolz! But if even ONE is? That proves many of Hillary's statements are perjury. And if there's ONE classified document, marked or not, that's a crime! If Hillary sent it to Weiner's laptop? She's the one who committed the crime, no one else. Of course if Abedin was using her husband's laptop to communicate with Hillary on their unsecured private server? That's a crime too if ONE single classified document was sent OR received, marked or not. Period. >>> That's why the FBI needed a 'fresh' Warrant: this is s separate investigation from Weiner's child-abuse one. This one directly involves both Hillary and Abedin, and probably a lot more people too. Their 'immunity' should not apply to these new crimes...
0
Reply
Male 6,077
"But if even ONE is? That proves many of Hillary's statements are perjury." So, if Hillary sent Abedin a greeting on her birthday, that makes her guilty? Here's some advice: put your dick away and let's wait for some actual information.
0
Reply
Male 40,772
Um, are you being a dumbfuck on purpose broiz?? I said CLASSIFIED, that's the FUCKING TOPIC. Shit on a stick man, get a fucking clue ok?
0
Reply
Male 6,077
I haven't said there's nothing there. Might be. Just, so far, all we have is maybes.
0
Reply
Male 40,772
If there's 'nothing there' then WHY is the FBI seeking more warrants? They're going after Huma (it seems, so far) but it's impossible to blame her without also blaming Hillary, period. There are ample e-mails (physical evidence!) of Hillary ordering various criminal actions, and that many people (including Huma) warned her that these were indeed crimes! Hillary did it anyhow. 3. Well at least you're honest about it :-)
0
Reply
Male 6,077
Right. The POSSIBLE mishandling. So: 1) As I said, let's wait for some actual information instead of the "...might be..." shit we've been hearing so far 2) Watch your mouth and don't make me start to think you're the jerk that some others here think you are and 3) Yeah. I'm kind of a grammar Nazi...sorry.
0
Reply
Male 40,772
It was a continuation of the previous post, fuckhead, and the TOPIC HERE is not 'birthday e-mails' but in FACT the possible mishandling of classified e-mails or other illegal e-mail activity. Grow up already. Where did you lose track and suddenly think I'm talking about 'birthday greetings' when the fucking topic has always been potential criminal actions? O_o How can I take you seriously dude... a fucking grammar Nazi to boot you are? I wasn't 100% clear on a site with NO editing and you piss all over yourself in joy at finding what you (wrongly) believe is a 'smoking gun error'? Fuck you.
0
Reply
Male 6,077
To quote: "THIS scandal is from Abedin Huma (Hillary's right-hand woman, found in tens of thousands of Hillary's e-mails) ill-fated husband Anthony Weiner. Yes, that one, he did it again. He's being investigated for sexting & sending obscene pictures (of himself) to A CHILD. Knowing she was under-age the entire time. HIS laptop was seized and all those e-mails recovered. Now, not all of them are from Hillary! Lolz! But if even ONE is? That proves many of Hillary's statements are perjury." Up to that point, which is clearly what I was referring to, no, you didn't. Try really hard not to be a dumbfuck, yourself.
0
Reply
Male 40,772
Her servers were entirely separate, in fact there were 6-7 of them :-/ She delayed as long as she could to obey the Court Order to turn them over, then provided PAPER copies to Congress (that cannot be searched or traced) while claiming this was ALL of her work e-mails and NONE of the deleted ones were in any way work related. She said that under oath. Of course the FBI finally got ahold of the physical 'wiped, like with a cloth" servers and recovered THOUSANDS of purely work-related e-mails that were destroyed (illegally) and even worse: hundreds of MARKED classified documents too! She has sworn, again this was under oath, that she never sent or received even ONE document 'marked as classified' yet there they were. All these things and a lot more were criminal, intention is NOT relevant, the laws are VERY specific. And yes, many people have gone to jail for far fewer violations than Hillary made.
0
Reply
Male 40,772
Finally! The MSM are talking (a little bit) about Hillary's e-mail crimes. If Abedin had classified materials from Hillary (and she did!) they were sent illegally on the private server because that's the ONLY one Hillary used! She had NO authorized. secure, legal account at all! If Anthony has them on his machine? That's another set of crimes on top of it. Abedin may have immunity for the violations directly related to Hillary, but does that apply to this NEW set of crimes she failed to report? (Which is also a crime btw).
0
Reply
Male 5,027
Either you are grossly misinformed or you are blatantly lying. Classified information is not read over the government email system that you are so upset that Clinton didn't use. Classified information is read three ways: 1) In a secure location where the person reading the information has to check it out and read it in a secure room without leaving the premises. 2) On an archaic system called The Cable that the government setup to access classified information. Cables can not be accessed from a laptop or smart phone nor can they be read just anywhere. 3) Daily briefings given directly to the person.
0
Reply
Male 1,073
@Markus: Your information is misleading and incomplete. Classified information can be stored, accessed and transmitted in different ways depending on the classification. This commonly ranges from Confidential up to Top Secret Sensitive Compartmented Information (TS/SCI). SIPRNet is the government's secure network and among other things provides secure email service over which certain classified information can be transmitted. The State Department had access to SIPRNet. What the FBI found was that classified information was being copied from secure email into non-secure emails. Also, if someone has classified information in their head and then types that into a fresh email you have then 'mishandled' it. The FBI came across Top Secret SCI information in Hillary's emails, not to mention information with lower classifications. Hillary and staff were also accused of stripping off the classification headers. If you even -think- something is classified based on your knowledge and experience it should be treated as such. Your examples seem to be referring only to TS/SCI data which is commonly accessed via the use of a SCIF (Sensitive Compartmented Information Facility). But again, if you learn of something in an authorized fashion and then choose to share it with those without the proper clearance or need to know, or over an unsecure medium, you are mishandling that information.
0
Reply
Male 5,027
Sorry for the second set of questions. You just seem to know what you are talking about, which is a pleasant change here at IAB. Weren't the two emails that were marked confidential (C) marked that way improperly? That they were about meetings that Hillary was going to have and that because she had decided to have the meetings the confidential identifier no longer applied? Also on the 100 or so different classified emails they found, how many were marked as classified by both departments that mark things classified? You can have one email that contains classified information but another department will say no, that is not classified. That is where the bleed comes in that makes it almost impossible to not have some classified information on the standard federal work emails. If you look at any of the state.gov or private email accounts that the people in the federal government use you are going to find this classified bleed. It's just bound to happen with the excessive over-classification that goes on in our government. Now if someone purposely sent Hillary information that they knew was classified I agree that the person who sent it should be investigated. Not sure how that can be Hillary's fault though. I would hate to think I could get in trouble at work for something someone else sent to me.
0
Reply
Male 5,027
"OF COURSE SHE USED IT FOR PERSONAL E-MAILS " ???? That is not what I accused you of. You talk about strawman but you just used one. Read this very slowly. What I accused you of is lying about Hillary only using her PRIVATE EMAIL to do work. There is a secure encrypted system for looking at confidential material. You pretend as if Clinton did not use this encrypted system to look at classified material. A secretary of State could not do her job if she did not use the two secure systems Nettech talked about to read or look at classified information. You have repeated that lie over and over and over. Your second comment in this post is one example of you spreading this lie, "She had NO authorized. secure, legal account at all!"
0
Reply
Male 40,772
@MarkusT123: OF COURSE SHE USED IT FOR PERSONAL E-MAILS fuck-wit! WHO has ever said otherwise? The POINT IS that YOU said I was wrong and that a single 'birthday greeting' proved me wrong, but that's bullshit, and you ought to know it. The TOPIC is NOT her PERSONAL e-mails, nor was it EVER! That is a decoy, a distraction, a strawman that the DNC runs out there to confuse the stupid people, like yourself. >>>Using a private e-mail at work is not illegal, Hillary can do that, no issues. Sending work related materials? Getting grey now. Using it to send MARKED classified materials (and she did!) to people NOT authorized to see them? THIS IS THE TOPIC HERE! And it is clearly a crime, you have to agree, yes? She also swore under oath (2-3 separate times iirc) she never did, that's Felony Perjury, fyi. >>>She used her device for 'convenience'? IT'S A FUCKING CRIME! To do so, idiot. >>>Why else would she use 16 different devices over 4 years? BUT NEVER ONCE use a free, secure, top-of-the-line device provided for her? Why not? What other reason besides evading FOI is there? THEY TALKED ABOUT that very reason in the beginning, it's right there in the WORK e-mails! The ones she deleted, ffs! >>>Failing to archive her work materials? Not a crime, but clearly broke the rules she swore to uphold. Yet you defend her?
0
Reply
Male 5,027
What I accused you of, 5Cats, is lying about Hillary only using her private email to do work. This is what i asked NetTech, "Where 5Cats is purposely misinforming people is he is saying that because Hillary did not use her state.gov email account she did all her work communications over her private email. When in fact she would have used the two systems you describe to deal with classified information." His answer was, "that appears to be the case. While she may have used her state.gov account, the accusations (and evidence) suggest that she used her private email server for 'convenience' (so she can use mobile devices, etc) and to possibly avoid FOIA requests in the future." What you just did was lie to get out of being exposed as a liar. Brilliantly idiotic. Typical 5Cats.
0
Reply
Male 40,772
Two Markus? Two? There were 2000+ and about a dozen of the VERY highest classification. ALL of which she sent/received on her private server. While none of the ones she 'turned over' (in PAPER form! so there's no way to tell if they'd been altered at any point) were 'marked classified' many of them were indeed 'born that way' ok? Someone stripped the markings off. Her own e-mails show her TELLING others to do just that. This alone is a crime. AND the FBI recovered 200+ that were indeed MARKED in the ones she deleted! To delete them is itself is a crime btw, they were under subpoena!! As well as... it's illegal! >>>NetTech just confirmed everything you accused me of being false, any apology forthcoming?
0
Reply
Male 1,073
I go back to what I said before. If through your training, knowledge, and experience, you find that something seems classified, it is to be treated as such. As for being the recipient, if you receive something which meets those criteria in a manner which is not approved, you have an obligation to report that there has been a breach in the handling of that classified information. If you fail to report that, you are culpable. One could argue not nearly as much as the person that sent it. You can draw an analogy from 'possessing stolen property.' Someone gives you something that is stolen. You don't know it's stolen, but it is. You have it. Is that a defense? Yet here we are dealing with multiple instances, with various classifications (not just what was marked, but what should have been marked), with someone with knowledge and experience of what -is- or -should- be classified, communicating the information through non-secure means. As for your example about something being marked improperly, it needs to be treated as marked as a minimum, or higher if you suspect so. Only after the fact can someone in authority go back and say that wasn't necessary. As for the disparity in interpretations of what is or is not classified, it has to be treated at the higher level until someone independent determines otherwise. Who am I (or Hillary or Huma, etc) to say I don't agree with this classification so screw it? Someone else has to make that determination. As for "over-classification" isn't that maybe 'better safe than sorry'? I would rather err on the side of secrecy.
0
Reply
Male 5,027
Thanks for the corrections nettech98. I was having a hard time finding the actual names of the systems. I didn't mean to misinform and I apologize for that. So is the secure location I was talking about where you have to physically go to look at documents called called SCIF? Also what I was calling The Cable where classified information is read, is that now run on an encrypted email system you are saying is called SIPRNet? How long have they been doing that? They did use to used to have some old piece of crap system called the Cable didn't they? Where 5Cats is purposely misinforming people is he is saying that because Hillary did not use her state.gov email account she did all her work communications over her private email. When in fact she would have used the two systems you describe to deal with classified information.
0
Reply
Male 1,073
What you call "the cable" seems to be what are called diplomatic cables. Those are information releases to a given location as opposed to an individual recipient. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diplomatic_cable As for "5Cats is purposely misinforming people is he is saying that because Hillary did not use her state.gov email account she did all her work communications over her private email" that appears to be the case. While she may have used her state.gov account, the accusations (and evidence) suggest that she used her private email server for 'convenience' (so she can use mobile devices, etc) and to possibly avoid FOIA requests in the future. Again, no classified information should be sent on an unsecure medium - not even the lowest classification. And to use the excuse that someone (Hillary, staff, etc) didn't know it was classified defies reasoning. One could maybe make an argument for Confidential, but Top Secret/SCI? Just because you think it's just Top Secret/Secret/Confidential (and that's a reach from TS/SCI to Confidential), still doesn't let you transmit it.
0
Reply
Male 40,772
Um, yes? And Anthony Weiner's private laptop is 1, 2 or even 3? Um, no? Hillary NEVER HAD an official, secure, legal, government e-mail account, never. So ALL those thousands of classified e-mails were sent on her private server, many to people UN-authorized to see them. She knew this, but did it anyhow. Someone also took the classified material off the secure network, deliberately, and put it on her servers, that is by itself a crime. What part of this do I have wrong? Then there's literally a dozen other things Hillary did that were illegal too: they are IN her own E-mails that she turned over, and more of them are in the ones the FBI recovered. And still more are in the leaked ones that were hacked. AND MORE are on Weiner's laptop... you can explain ALL that away? Let's hear it!
0
Reply
Male 1,073
@5Cats: Actually Hillary did have a state.gov email account: [email protected] Whether she ever used it as intended is another question....
0
Reply
Male 40,772
I've heard that it was set up for her (they do set one up for everyone) but that she never activated it. For sure she never once used it: there is not one single e-mail of hers in the State Dept Archives, which there would be if she had sent any over it. So: same thing eh? Had one, never once opened it, never once used it.
0
Reply
Male 5,027
Do you know the main reason that the FBI could not recommend charges be brought against her? It's because the government email system is such a huge, unreliable, piece of shit that almost everyone in the government at the time had a private email account so they could get their work done. And everyone that had one was bound to have a few bleed over confidential emails on their account. That's because of over-classification. You have two different entities marking things as classified. One could mark it as classified yet the other does not see it as such. If Hillary was brought up for someone accidentally sending her classified information everyone who had a private email account could be brought up on the same charges. Everyone. Christ even the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee chairman Jason Chaffetz has a gmail listed as his email address on his federal business cards. The only crime here is how far behind the government is with technology. They still use 5 1/4" floppy disks in some systems. These were phased out in the public sector in the late 80's.
0
Reply
Male 40,772
Bullshit Markus. EVERY OTHER EMPLOYEE at the State Dept except for Hillary's 'inner circle' used their official accounts, ok? The MOST MODERN and secure devices available were presented to her: she refused to use them because they'd automatically archive everything she sent or received. Having a 'private e-mail' is fine! USING it for CLASSIFIED documents is a crime. For fucks sake, you know nothing and yet you keep spouting bullshit? Unbelievable... you DO know that Hillary disciplined at least 2 DoS employees for (get this!) using private emails for official business (not classified, just Dept mailing). She knew it was a breech of protocol and she knew the classified mishandling was a crime: but she didn't care! She did it anyhow!
0
Reply
Male 5,027
Typical 5Cats. You never admit when you are caught in a lie you just double down on the lie. Read this slowly: Classified information is not allowed on the the government email accounts either. It is done on the system I described above called The Cable. Hillary absolutely had security clearance to The Cable. If you don't think the Secretary of state had access you are a special kind of stupid.
0
Reply
Male 3,684
this is not even remotely related to halloween. consider this a formal complaint.
0
Reply
Male 303
 
0
Reply
Male 40,772
You don't find this election 'scary'? ;-) Millions are terrified, one way or the other, eh?
0
Reply