Irrelevant of course. He was charged under the same statute that Hillary should have been charged with. Hillary should have been charged for negligently handling classified emails. But she's rich and powerful and a Democrat, so a different standard of justice applies.
He watches CNN, that's how. Believes all their shit, too.
-- This message may be freely reproduced without limit or charge only via the Usenet protocol. Reproduction in whole or part through other protocols, whether for profit or not, is conditional upon a charge of GBP10.00 per reproduction. Publication in this manner via non-Usenet protocols constitutes acceptance of this condition.
Oddly enough, I don't watch CNN. Their shit may disagree with the shit that Cursitor Doom favours, which is not evidence that CNN gets stuff wrong.
If Cursiotr Doom had any more brains in his head than Trader4, he'd know th at the highly skewed (and getting more skewed) income distribution in the U S has been of interest to economists for some years now, and there are all sort of ways of getting informed on the subject, none of which Cursitor Doo m nor Trader4 have any kind of clue about.
Whoey Louie wrote in news: snipped-for-privacy@googlegroups.com:
Oh, but it does. You see, this whole thing is all about the fact that she liked Blackberry phones and did not want to give them up. Her entire menagerie after that was so she could continue using her favorite phone.
You have no grasp that the word "criminality" does not appear in the statute under which Hillary should have been charged. All it requires is negligence in handling classified material. Comey, not me, said that Hillary was "extremely careless" in handling classified information. Extremely careless is negligent.
Totally irrelevant, and totally stupid, of course. Hillary only came up with that lie, that she needed her own email server to have just one device. We have pictures of her using several devices. And it does not matter. The US statutes don't say that you can disregard the law for personal convenience. This is really, really stupid, even for you.
No, that's a distortion/lie. The server data was purged on a regular basis, there were no long-term backups. Later attempts to search e-mail history found the server didn't retain that, so client machines that sent/received the mail were searched (in some cases, subpoenaed).
Those other locations that had e-mails, weren't backups of the server. The mail sender/receiver CLIENT machines, or OTHER servers might have had backups. Hilary didn't control the sender or receiver machines, nor other servers around the internet.
You'll get that and much else a *lot* with the type of morons you're attempting to debate with. Credit where it's due: you're quite indefatigable in the face of the monumental obtuseness you're constantly faced with here.
--
This message may be freely reproduced without limit or charge only via
the Usenet protocol. Reproduction in whole or part through other
protocols, whether for profit or not, is conditional upon a charge of
GBP10.00 per reproduction. Publication in this manner via non-Usenet
protocols constitutes acceptance of this condition.
Who said anything about "long-term"? Her emails sat on servers in small half-assed computer companies in New Jersey and Denver. One of them used a bathroom closed in a former loft. NONE were secured or approved for classified information or even any govt information. Hillary was WARNED that this was a security breech, a violation and she said do it anyway. Those are the FACTS.
Later attempts to search
They did have backups, because someone in the Denver facility mysteriously managed to erase the backup right AFTER it had been subpoenaed! He said, Hillary had ordered it erased, months earlier, but somehow he only woke up about that right after it was subpoenaed, so then he found the backups and erased them.
The
She damn well chose them, chose that system that resulted in her emails being hosted in unsecure, unapproved facilities, she went around protocol that violated the law, that resulted in Comey saying she had been 'extremely careless" in handling classified information. Those are the facts.
Whoey Louie wrote in news:5f9a21bf-9ad1-4fc3- snipped-for-privacy@googlegroups.com:
Again, idiot, he did not commit an act which has to do with breeches.
The very act of having the camera included phone in his possession in that secured compartment was a violation. Even if the twit had taken no picture at all. He went to prison for failing to follow the security protocol. Also, there is a sharp difference between the UCMJ and the department she was under. I do not expect you to understand.
ElectronDepot website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here.
All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.