who think her personal emails must have had something in them that would show she did something wrong.

Through repetition they've have both convinced themselves and made it a standard news talking point. That's how "the Big Lie" works.

on her private server. A portion was turned over to the State Department (work related) and a portion was deemed personal and deleted over time (some of these were later recovered, and it was judged that they actually had content related to her position of Secretary of State).

As far as we know either the State department or the FBI have all the emails. It appears that groups of them are being released over time (under FOIA? I don't know). Some will never be released because they have classified content (either classified at the time of being sent or later classified). Three actually had Confidential markings in the text of the email (I think all three of these were actually received by Clinton and not sent to her).

The Secret and higher emails never had classified markings, and it could be argued that they weren't actually classified since they were not marked. We may never know for sure since each document could be argued on its own merits, and that is not an argument that would occur in public.

I frankly think using a personal email with server to do government business is incredibly stupid and, in a normal election cycle, would make me reject the candidate. I will not in this case because the alternative is too frightening to contemplate.

If I was moderating the debate I would ask why did she set up a personal server, use a private email and not a government email, take extraordinary action to delete the contents of the server, and whether we can trust her to handle the nations secrets going forward. Care of the nations secrets starts at the top, and why should those under her take that job seriously when she didn't.

The bar should be higher than she was not indicted. That was Kaine's answer last night (she was not indicted).

I used to handle classified documents in my old job. I still handle company sensitive documents. I would never contemplate using a private email to do my work. All of our emails have warnings about the proprietary nature of them. In addition any sent to outside companies goes through a security protocol. This is for a private business whose secrets will not get people killed.

and the number deleted was not 33,000 either.

I have always thought, like Bernie Sanders, the email issue was a distraction, and her private server posed no serious threat to national security.

and about half were private, as determined by her lawyers (not her), and were deleted by the lawyers.

So about 30K were saved and about 30 K were deleted. That's why it's confusing.

So you would ask her questions that she has already answered in the press and for the FBI and DOJ as a debate moderator? Because as a debate moderator you would have some special skill set that FBI investigators and DOJ investigators and the press in general do not have?

Also, you understand that there were breaches in the State Department's servers but never in Hillary's private server yes? So you would prefer that her emails would have in a position to be breached rather than secure as they were?

You also realize that nothing in Hillary's emails got anyone killed correct? As opposed to when the Bush administration intentionally released Valerie Plame's identity for political retaliation resulting in the death of undercover operatives.

It was not a politically smart move nor was it good optics, but this has been made into a huge thing over "what maybe, might have, could have happened".

asking the very same questions she's already answered ad infinitum?

Nice.

Most of the email systems are closed, meaning you can't access your email unless you're either in the office or remotely connected to your department's email server via a department-issued device like a home desktop, laptop or tablet (more complicated that you think). Obviously, that's not always possible, so if your underlings need to contact you via email, having a private server or seperate email account might be a necessity.

You can send email from your gov't email to any email address and visa versa, but you can't always access your gov't account. Thus, it makes sense to have another way for staff and employees to get through to you and you to them.

Further, I don't think there's really much truly important classified info that's even sent via email. I guess there were 3 emails that contained classified info in them as there were portions marked with a (c) for confidential, the lowest level of classification, but there was no classified header. AFAIK, testimony given to Congress was that after State reviewed those 3 messages, the paragraphs marked (c) were, in face, determined to be not classified.

Clinton's server was set up as an unclassified system. She knew it, and more importantly, the people sending her emails knew it. That's why all the investigations turned up were 3 measley emails with a few lines marked with the very lowest level of classification.

But they did not hack Hillary's secret server, so they still want to know what they missed out on.



Anyone still wondering why Hillary had a separate server only needs to consider that the Republicans were hacking everything they could to try to malign Clinton.

And what, Fidel Castro broke into Watergate, right?

although I think Assange hinted the emails weren't even from a hack but were an inside job.

There was an IP address in the malware indicating the hacker used a computer in Russia. How does that lead to the would-be conclusion you offer?

FWIW.

I believe the Russian story.

So you think the GOP is actually working with Russia on the hack?

Or do you want us to believe Assange is the Dem you cite?

This is not a matter of beliefs, it is a criminal matter and evidence is what drives thinking. The evidence we have is of an IP address based in Russia, a server used by hackers because hackers want to avoid detection. Russia is a sort of law enforcement firewall because Russian intelligence does not cooperate with the West. So, if I want to hack you, all I need do is rent space on that server too. That doesn't make me a Russian or mean the Russians are working with me.

When I harvested the address of George W. Bush's personal computer, I didn't run a hack from my own IP--that would have gotten me arrested. All hackers know this, Republicans included.

Don't believe anything Assange says without confirmation in the form of evidence, just like any criminal inquiry. Or at least hack him.

It's what his deplorable supporters want to hear.

He will release his taxes when "she releases her 33,000 deleted emails."

In 2014, she handed over 30,490 email to the State Department that were deemed work related. But there was also 31,830 deleted email that was noted as not work-related. Email was deleted with a free app called BleachBit. Trump seems to think that this was a very expensive process that actually involved acid.

The FBI was able to recover more than 17,000 deleted email that was not handed over (much of it was duplicate email.)

Trump accused the FBI of not trying hard enough to recover the remaining 16 or 17 thousand email. If the FBI can't recover it, does he think Hillary can? Does he really think that she has these deleted email stored on a secret hard drive that she could just turn over.

Aside from 33,000 being just a wrong larger number, half of it was recovered, and there is still nothing! So get over it Republicans!

This case has been more thorough than any other case in history. It's time to let it go.

told them that would win them the election

Your talking about the same group that used a couple of staple marks on Bill Clinton's passport application (about where most people typically stapled their photo to the form) to insinuate he had renounced his citizenship.

And the same sort of people who believed it ("I just knew it! The hippie pinko sumbich!&quot .