Fox news didn't really believe it either,
But it made for lots of negative press and discussion over there.

then you are untouchable.

How much did you get paid for this post?

she has a pass,no matter what she has done.

She is not a commoner like us.

At the very least she exhibited horrible and stupid judgement, and at the most, shirked the rules and broke the law on purpose?

Okay, whatever

Please come tell us this again in Novemeber when the votes are in if she is the nominee.

I'll be honest though. After the Sharks win last night, I'm rooting for the Thunder! If the Sharks manage to win the Cup in the same year that the Warriors win the championship, those people up there will be insufferable! Looks like the damn Giants are on point this year too. Damn!!

At least, not before the inauguration. Can't vouch 100% for the transition period. Republicans will go straight to work on it, you can be sure.

Clinton said, "I fully complied with every rule I was governed by."

Actually the report shows she didn't comply with m/any at all.

And as is way too typical lies to try to minimize the damage of her choices.

said the rule that was ambiguous that governed: So she told the truth: Clarity was
done after the 2014 about electronic records. The government was
well aware of Hillary emails for years: as well as everyone elses emails:
they didn't believe they should be collecting records then as the required
by the rules. Hillary is being single out for political attack only!

And how little others realized the extent of her wrong-doing.

I suggest you re-read it.


"Secretary Clinton: By Secretary Clinton’s tenure, the Department’s guidance was considerably
more detailed and more sophisticated. Beginning in late 2005 and continuing through 2011, the
Department revised the FAM and issued various memoranda specifically discussing the
obligation to use Department systems in most circumstances and identifying the risks of not
doing so. Secretary Clinton’s cybersecurity practices accordingly must be evaluated in light of
these more comprehensive directives.

Throughout Secretary Clinton’s tenure, the FAM stated that normal day-to-day operations
should be conducted on an authorized AIS,147 yet OIG found no evidence that the Secretary
requested or obtained guidance or approval to conduct official business via a personal email
account on her private server.

According to the current CIO and Assistant Secretary for Diplomatic Security, Secretary Clinton had an obligation to discuss using her personal email account to conduct official business with their offices, who in turn would have attempted to
provide her with approved and secured means that met her business needs. However, according
to these officials, DS and IRM did not—and would not—approve her exclusive reliance on a
personal email account to conduct Department business, because of the restrictions in the FAM
and the security risks in doing so.

In addition to interviewing current and former officials in DS and IRM, OIG interviewed other
senior Department officials with relevant knowledge who served under Secretary Clinton,
including the Under Secretary for Management, who supervises both DS and IRM; current and
former Executive Secretaries; and attorneys within the Office of the Legal Adviser. These officials
all stated that they were not asked to approve or otherwise review the use of Secretary Clinton’s
server and that they had no knowledge of approval or review by other Department staff. These
officials also stated that they were unaware of the scope or extent of Secretary Clinton’s use of a
personal email account, though many of them sent emails to the Secretary on this account.
Secretary Clinton’s Chief of Staff also testified before the House Select Committee on Benghazi
that she was unaware of anyone being consulted about the Secretary’s exclusive use of a personal email address.15

During Secretary Clinton’s tenure, the FAM also instructed employees that they were expected
to use approved, secure methods to transmit SBU information and that, if they needed to
transmit SBU information outside the Department’s OpenNet network on a regular basis to nonDepartmental
addresses, they should request a solution from IRM.148 However, OIG found no
evidence that Secretary Clinton ever contacted IRM to request such a solution, despite the fact
that emails exchanged on her personal account regularly contained information marked as SBU

Similarly, the FAM contained provisions requiring employees who process SBU information on
their own devices to ensure that appropriate administrative, technical, and physical safeguards
are maintained to protect the confidentiality and integrity of records and to ensure encryption
of SBU information with products certified by NIST.149 With regard to encryption, Secretary
Clinton’s website states that “robust protections were put in place and additional upgrades and
techniques employed over time as they became available, including consulting and employing
third party experts.”150 Although this report does not address the safety or security of her
system, DS and IRM reported to OIG that Secretary Clinton never demonstrated to them that her
private server or mobile device met minimum information security requirements specified by FISMA and the FAM.

Secretary Clinton used mobile devices to conduct official business using the personal email
account on her private server extensively, as illustrated by the 55,000 pages of material making
up the approximately 30,000 emails she provided to the Department in December 2014.
Throughout Secretary Clinton’s tenure, the FAM stated that normal day-to-day operations
should be conducted on an authorized AIS,147 yet OIG found no evidence that the Secretary
requested or obtained guidance or approval to conduct official business via a personal email
account on her private server.


etc etc etc

There are a few people licking their lips over a frogmarch moment, hoping for their own Fitzmas.

Is it posted as news, or just to gloat that (in your opinion) your candidate will be the nominee? If it is the latter, do you realize that the only purpose it serves is to anger Bernie supporters and make them less likely to want to vote for someone whose supporters show such arrogance?

So what do you know.

except some here, of course

See? I can do it too.

that Trump is selling.

We need a candidate that follows the legal requirements of government freedom of information act for one thing

she's reckless about cybersecurity and unwilling to be transparent about her money connections and speeches.

That would be a disaster.

Your second assertion is likely true, the first, that she will it be indicted is just idle speculation. One assertion has verifiable evidence to justify it. The other has nothing

won't face prison time.