And your op is filled with falsehoods. It's clear as can be you didn't read the report.

everyone set up their own server and routed everything through their basement and then lied about it

... so early in the morning?

Hard to see the shitstorm coming with those starry eyes, eh?

So much effort, noise and pageantry invested in denialism.

with a manufactured "scandal" started by republicans when they realised Benghazi! wasn't going to bring her or Obama down is disappointing,that's the most polite way I can put it.

This has nothing to do with Sanders. It has everything to do with the OIG report.

the same no matter who initiated the requests.

Clearly the point is to try to weaken the perception of Hillary Clinton's cred in the eyes of people who don't have much of a clue. Some of it may come from Bernie Sander's supporters, because obviously they wanted Bernie to beat her, but I think a lot of this comes from paid trolls and hobby trolls who have nothing better to do with their lives and time.

to become a major story just before the GE when the opposition is a two-bit carnival barker.

"Politically astute Hillary" my ass.

Sorry, but this is not "so much ado about so little." It was a bad report and makes me think the FBI report will be a whole lot worse.

Being fed a line of steady bull shit excuses leaves a bloated feeling. Before a President Trump becomes reality people need to pick themselves up and shake it off both Sanders and Clinton supporters. This is serious and will not go away. Excuses are rapidly falling down the hole and all of this is depressing. Denial does not help in stages of grief.

... was not very well done.

Clearly you're not one of Brock's paid trolls. He would would never accept such poor-quality work.

Actually she didn't follow m/any of them at all.

On purpose. For selfish & even shady reasons.

And she continues to lie about it

Maybe this IS little to you. Oh well.

But Hillary does it and people want to act like she committed treason. Dumb.

Than republicans...Is that your argument??

On actual substance she was a great SoS, but trying to drag her down because she did the same thing with email usage as the two SoSes before her is dumb.

...in their homes? Wow, that's big news. You should contact MSNBC or CNN or the like, I'm sure they will be thrilled to get that scoop.

Do you have any idea how hard it is to properly secure an email server? Securing any server is difficult; email is known to be one of the trickiest areas.

Clinton hired a person whose degree is in Political Science to do the job. Even if she is not herself technically knowledgeable, her job requires her to know who is. As President, that kind of judgment is even more crucial.

Criminal or not, what she did was really, really dumb.

isn't what made it against State policy, and doesn't make any difference. It was a breach of red tape that a lot of people at State did. Only people trying to use this for political gain are trying to make a big deal of it.

...to conduct official business. Hillary Clinton used her personal email account, hosted on her personal server, to conduct ALL of her official business. She never used her .gov account. That is a big difference, whether you care to acknowledge it or not.

No, a lot of people at State did not run personal email servers.

No, a lot of people at State did not conduct all of their official business on personal email accounts.

When FOIA requests were made for Clinton's emails at State, the department came back saying there were no records responsive to those requests. That is because there were no emails from her .gov account, and she had not turned in any of her records until 2 years after she left the office.

None of this may seem fishy to you. I believe you will find you are in a minority on that issue. Time will tell.

Private server versus yahoo is equally against policy. This is nothing but a political game.

You can keep saying it, but its just not accurate.

Using a cloud based main stream non government email account is one thing, and this appears to be what other SOS's did. If this included classified information, then I think it should be an issue.

What the Clintons did is have their own private email system built. It appears that the domain used for this email system is the same domain used for the Clinton Foundation email, which would certainly be a conflict of interest. A big one. In addition, it appears that they did not employ the appropriate security steps to ensure that their private system was secure, which is markedly different than what the other SOS's used, because the encryption with AOL mail, hotmail, gmail, etc. works.

And lastly, and probably most significant, the fact that the Clinton email system was owned by them means that the Clintons themselves would be the ones providing any information from that server to comply with FOIA requests, subpenas, etc. The other SOS's would not have had this authority over the non government emails they were using. This is the wrinkle that would have allowed the Clintons to be the ones to decide what gets handed over and what doesn't.

The Clintons were acting as their own email provider. None of the other SOS's did this.

[hr][font color="blue"][center]Stop looking for heroes. BE one.[/center][/font][hr]

If you don't have a certain level of IT knowledge, and specifically IT security knowledge, then the difference may not seem significant.

But, if you do have that knowledge, this is a no brainer.

ISPs and email providers are routinely asked and/or required by law enforcement and other agencies to provided usage information from their systems. When this happens, the end user is usually NOT involved in the process. If law enforcement makes a request, the service provider will check with their legal department, and if they are required to comply, they will do so. This often involves handing over end users' emails and logs of their other activity while online. The end user normally has no say in what is handed over and what is not handed over.

When the service provider and the end user are the same person, it gets a little messy due to the obvious conflict of interest. In Clinton's case, you have an additional layer of messiness since she is associated with A) the service provider B) the government who is entitled to have access to government communications and who would be making the request for the information, and C) she is the end user.

And then there is the other conflict of interest issue due to this being the same email domain that is used for the Clinton Foundation. She was doing state business with the Clinton Foundation email account. She appeared to be using the Clinton foundation account as her primary account for everything. this would be the @clintonemail account.

Maybe this is all nothing to some people, but I would be shocked to find an IT security professional that would agree with any of this. Its careless, unsafe, unnecessary, and poorly executed, from an IT security point of view. And that is sugarcoating it, and not assuming any motive......even though the motive is obvious if you have looked at all of the information released. She knew what she was doing. it was intentional. She was told it was not secure. She dismissed those concerns rather than addressing them. She was told it was not in compliance with regulations. She dismissed those concerns instead of addressing them, also.

You may have not actually wanted an answer, but there it is.

been banned by Obama - as an adviser re Libya (also representing clients with interests in a post-war Libya), being paid through her Foundation, and whose completely wrong 'intelligence' she used (with no ability for scrutiny) to persuade Obama to intervene in a sovereign nation on the '7 countries in 5 years' hit list and help cause that horror, as well as all of the resulting suffering for millions since?

So much ado about so little? The IS and Boko Haram freaks who were let lose to fill the vacuums in Iraq and Libya created have burned people alive - among so many other atrocities. Is that nothing? Without Blumenthal's 'info', an ambivalent Obama may not have been pushed over the line for that 51-49 vote. Clinton told Blumenthal to 'keep em coming'. Another email celebrated getting Obama onboard as an early Christmas present!

Meanwhile, millions are either dead, maimed physically and mentally, orphaned, dying at sea, refugees in dangerous refugee camps where women (who'd previously been allowed many, many freedoms now denied by the fundamentalists now running those countries) and children are kidnapped and raped and murdered.

Nothing to care about, though.

Yet you are willing to risk that with a deeply flawed candidate.

I cannot believe so many people are stupid enough to push a candidate that's not only under FBI investigation, but clearly sinking rapidly into scandal quicksand.