Usually quotations are reserved for quoting people, hence the name. You’re using them “wrong” because I never said I didn’t “like” the classification system.

I said it’s a joke, and it is. Don’t believe me? See Wikileaks and the Snowden papers.

No, they didn’t. You just think that because you didn’t read the FBI’s statement.

Sorry Jack, I usually like your posts, but this time you’re just wrong. She did not destroy evidence, it was right there in the FBI report and in the article.

No, I’m saying you can’t actually name an instance when she lied, because you don’t actually know. Sorry if that was unclear for you.

You should be more specific if you expect to be taken seriously.

It’s not specious to claim that “no harm has been done” because no harm has been done yet. You’re claim that future harm may yet result is undisproveable; but semantically irrelevant to what I said.

Partially true; Powell had his own server. Rice did not, and no secretaries of state before her used email. Washington isn’t always at the cutting edge of technology.

No actually, it’s you who doesn’t get to play this “Well, an investigation found she did not break any laws, but I really feel like a law was broken” bullshit. It doesn’t matter what you think of the legal system, it is the system and the law. It’s not “the system unless Ape Tit for $400" doesn’t like it.

Irrelevant, that’s not how evidence works. If there’s no evidence her actions hurt national security, than I will operate under the assumption is did NOT until presented evidence to the contrary. Apparently you want to operate under the assumption that she DID until you see evidence that she did not; which is…

Yeah, I kind of agree. There are two many children who want to watch the world bern because they didn’t get their candidate into office even thought they posted about it like, 1000 times. I voted for Bernie too; but I knew it was a long shot when I did.

You really need to check your facts buddy. According to the FBI investigation, Clinton did not delete any emails. You know that actually reading the article would have helped with that, right?

That’s exactly my point: this isn’t a question of secure vs insecure email servers. This is a question of insecure vs insecure, and it’s not even evident that the state department servers were even slightly more secure.

But the people who told her not to didn’t have the legal authority to force her to do so. I haven’t seen any evidence that national security suffered because of her actions.

Sure, it’s separate; but that doesn’t mean it’s actually more secure. Our classification system is a joke, and it’s why we’re almost constantly hemorrhaging classified documents.

I get that it wasn’t subject to the Federal Records Act, but at the point where the emails are released, isn’t that kind of a moot point?

Really? Does anybody really care about this? I don’t even understand why people are upset about this. She used a private server that may have been almost as insecure as the State Department server she was supposed to have used. Right now there is no part of the government, even the NSA, who can manage to keep their…

That doesn’t actually make any sense. If the seats were just getting narrower without adding more rows of seats, the average spacing between seats would be increasing not decreasing.

It absolutely is that they are adding additional seats as the original poster thought wasn’t possible. If you take a look at this…

And how did no congressman ever come forward with a plan to snatch this contract up and deliver jobs to their district? How easy a sell would it have been to say “lets provide jobs to honest, hard working American non-criminals first?”

Yeah, I can accept the fact that I’m an asshole; as long as I’m right.

No no, you’re confused. Ignoring the comment means that you don’t reply to it. You’ll get the hang of it soon.

Who said anything about a cause for alarm? This seems like a simple case of a vendor not “feeling the room,” and trying to sell a product at what was clearly the wrong venue. Why is it that pro gun people always assume anyone who doesn’t want or need for guns to be present at any particular event or location think…