Should Hillary talk to the FBI??

originally posted by: Sillyolme
a reply to: RickinVa

You make up crap day in and day out. Everything you post is your own overblown opinion devoid of any facts. Every egotistical response has been "I'm the expert I know how these things work and my opinion is the only one that matters"
But Rick I have linked real information while you just give your own closed opinion.
Sorry buddy but you're not going to be the bully here once again.

So you are saying that Hillary Clinton did not have classified material stored on her unclassified server and that is just something that is overblown opinion??

Do you know the difference between an opinion and a fact?

FACT = Hillary Clinton has been caught in multiple circumstances with classified material on her unclassified server.

OPINION: Hillary Clinton will face indictment because of the FACT above.



Are you saying that Hillary Clinton is completely innocent and never had any classified materials outside of proper government control?

Are you saying that because Hillary got caught with classified information on a unclassified server, that is a figment of my overblown imagination?

Which is it?



Look, you keep right on posting any news source you want... I will keep giving you GOVERNMENT websites that prove that Hillary Clinton has committed mishandling of classified information.

You be the judge,,,,, unofficial media sources, or information taken straight from official government web pages without any media bias or spin.

a reply to: RickinVa

What I'm saying is that you keep spouting off about oh this happened then these guys did this, then that happened and it's all just happening in your head. None of that is real Rick. The FBI hasn't said what it found. But somehow they've telepathically conveyed the info to your mind.
Black bars of redacted material cannot miraculously be revealed to you yet you just somehow "know" that what was redacted was a hugh threat to the security of the nation. . You have no idea what was redacted.
You ignore it when it's said that the classification of most of the material was determined to be confidential. Not top secret. You totally ignore the fact that she's not under criminal investigation. You insist she is, even with the facts being shown over and over that she's not. You are full of yourself Rick. I've met people like you before.
What did you do at the FBI ? Sweep the floors and empty trash bins?
Hail to the chief. Mrs Hillary Clinton.

originally posted by: Sillyolme
a reply to: RickinVa

What did you do at the FBI ? Sweep the floors and empty trash bins?

Looks like you win RickinVa. Congrats.

"How To Tell When A Liberal Concedes An Argument"

4. The Personal Attack: Another common thread. Also designed to divert the lost argument. NEVER give any hint of personal information. Even something as innocuous as “I am a chef”. They will attempt to engage you and call you a liar to divert attention from the original lost argument. Ignore this and re-post the facts yet to be refuted.
5. Name Calling: Still another diversion. If you fail to give them any personal information, they will attempt to draw you out to gain more insight into your personal side. Then they will return to step 4. Ignore this.

www.varight.com...

a reply to: Sillyolme

"You ignore it when it's said that the classification of most of the material was determined to be confidential. Not top secret."


So in your opinion, 2000+ instances of confidential information should just be ignored? Each is a misdemeanor charge, but we should just toss all that away because it is a lower level of classified document?

I focus on 22 Top Secret Emails
I focus on 80 Secret Emails
I focus on 2000+ Confidential Emails

I focus on facts like that by you claiming there a lower classified materials involved, you just said what I have been saying for months.... she had classified information stored on her unclassified server. You go right on ignoring 2000+ confidential emails, I doubt anybody else is ignoring 2000 misdemeanor counts. 2,000 instances show a clear disregard for security protocols.

Confidential and above communications are considered classified information. Lesser degree of classification doesn't really mean much because they are all considered classified in the legal sense.

It is my opinion, that any half ass decent prosecutor can take 2000 misdemeanors and squeeze them down into just a few felonies. But what do I know? I am just a crazy old man on the internet who says he retired from the FBI.

The clock is still ticking.

a reply to: UnBreakable

Good thing mine was a retaliation huh? Ya killing me dude. You're just too witty and smart. Low blows and empty words. Oh I'm soooo devastated. LOL.

a reply to: RickinVa

You focus on your own damned imagination and little more. You guys are really making my day.

a reply to: RickinVa

They were her own emails. Correctly sent to her for her job. The server was legal if frowned upon. Where's the crime????

You and I both know this investigation is in regards to security even if you want to pretend it's not.
Facts are facts and imagination is a wonderful thing. But has no weight here. Sorry.

originally posted by: Sillyolme
a reply to: RickinVa

You focus on your own damned imagination and little more. You guys are really making my day.

I would rather focus on whether or not you agree that Hillary got caught with over 2000 Confidential classified emails.


Let focus on that?


Did she or did she not get caught with 2000+ confidential classified emails on her unclassified email server?

a reply to: RickinVa

Oh one more thing... tick tock. It's getting boring.

originally posted by: Sillyolme
a reply to: RickinVa

Oh one more thing... tick tock. It's getting boring.

I don't find watching a former cabinet level government official face the same music that so many other military and government workers have faced what I call boring.... I call it watching Hillary between the proverbial rock and a hard place.

It's the new watergate.

a reply to: RickinVa

She had emails that were addressed to her. They were her emails.
How is a server classified or unclassified?
The computer wasn't set up by the boy next door. She had a security expert set it up.
The investigation is a security inquiry no matter what you believe.
There is nothing but your imagination that says anything to the contrary.

a reply to: RickinVa

I call it Tinkerbelle flying around Cinderellas castle. I hear Gene Wilder as Willy Wonka singing about a world of pure imagination.

originally posted by: Sillyolme
a reply to: RickinVa

She had emails that were addressed to her. They were her emails.
How is a server classified or unclassified?
The computer wasn't set up by the boy next door. She had a security expert set it up.
The investigation is a security inquiry no matter what you believe.
There is nothing but your imagination that says anything to the contrary.

I know its pointless beyond pointless... but.......

1. She had emails that were addressed to her. They were her emails.

Any email that contained classified information was the property of the United States Government. All classified information is considered property of the US Government.

2. How is a server classified or unclassified.

The biggest obvious difference is that classified us government servers are kept behind a layer of encryption as set forth by NSA. They have to meet specific government standards and guide lines.

Her server did not meet the US requirements for classified material. We know this because in order to do it legally, she would have been granted an NSA waiver and we wouldn't be talking about it.

3. The computer wasn't set up by the boy next door. She had a security expert set it up.

The only person who could have set up that server would have been a government employee or a qualified government contractor who was trained to do so. The State Department Security Officer would have been aware and would have overseen the entire process. They would have never approved the use of a private email server for classified information, so it is a moot point.

None of that happened.

4. The investigation is a security inquiry no matter what you believe.

The investigation started out as a referral to the FBI concerning the mishandling of classified information in the summer of 2015, which was the correct procedure. Once the first piece of verifiable classified information was found outside of strict government control, it became a criminal investigation at that point. If you believe for one second that the FBI's posture did not change after the first verifiable secret or top secret email, you are simply living a pipe dream.

5. There is nothing but your imagination that says anything to the contrary.

What you don't understand is everything Hillary is accused of doing, she most likely could have achieved the exact same effect if she followed the legal procedure for off site storage of classified materials.

I am just a crazy old man on the internet who claims he retired from the FBI.

a reply to: RickinVa

Property of the US govt and she was the US govt. E mails addressed to her from the dot gov web address. Do you think they were ...gasp ...misdirected. ????
No they were addressed to her as Secretary of State.
Stop acting like she wasn't entitled to receive these emails because they were addressed directly to her. She was supposed to get them and read them.

originally posted by: Sillyolme
a reply to: RickinVa

Property of the US govt and she was the US govt. E mails addressed to her from the dot gov web address. Do you think they were ...gasp ...misdirected. ????
No they were addressed to her as Secretary of State.
Stop acting like she wasn't entitled to receive these emails because they were addressed directly to her. She was supposed to get them and read them.

You are being stupid and you know it... Hillary Clinton was not authorized to receive classified information on her unclassified email server.

I don't give a crap if she was President of the US or the freaking Wizard of OZ...... no one is allowed to have classified information on an unclassified server.

I can repeat that as many times as you falsely claim that her being a government employee allows her to break the law and possess classified information outside of strict government control.



I am retired...I got all the time in the world... don't forget...I am a nobody.

a reply to: RickinVa

They haven't released their findings about the security of the server how can you possibly say whether it was appropriately set up?
The computer was set up by Bryan Pagliano who was an IT specialist with the state dept. The state dept knew all about it. They were even trying to see if they could swap out her BlackBerry for the type of phone Obama was using because she was comfortable using her cell for email.
Please don't tell me I have been having this discussion and you didn't even know the most basic facts in the case?
They didn't approve of her using her own server but they didn't forbid it either.
And it never became a criminal investigation. It is not.

Please show me the official notice from the govt that they are engaging in a criminal investigation of a front running candidate for president. The whole thing is beyond ridiculous. She would have quit to focus on a defense. We'd be hearing about affidavits and discovery and have lawyers speaking to lawyers. None of that is happening.

If you think you're frustrated can you imagine how I'm feeling? Why yes you can because your imagination is rivaled only by Walt Disney himself

a reply to: RickinVa

I'm retired too. And I'm also in Virginia. Aw Rick we have so much in common. 🌸

a reply to: RickinVa

Ok you made a claim that said if material is questionable as far as being classified then it should be considered classified didn't you? I found a reference to an Executive order which states
If there is significant doubt it should not be.
prospect.org...

And from the government itself.
www.whitehouse.gov...

www.washingtonpost.com...

And then there's this....

a reply to: RickinVa

I never said you were a nobody Rick.