Re: 2016 Election
 

Internet security experts have opined that her email service was almost certainly hacked by Russia, China and Iran, to such an extent that they could read her emails in real time. The level of expertise available to those powers would leave no trace on her server. Probably at least the UK, France, Israel and Germany were also hacking it. Crap, the story broke when a civilian from Romania hacked in and broke the story to the NYT. Some of her emails went beyond Top Secret.

So, if none of that endangered national security, then we're fine. But you or I would be spending a significant part of the rest of our lives in prison if we had done what she did and our names didn't happen to be Hillary Rodham Clinton, The Presumptive Nominee.

Ex-Pentagon chief: Iran, China or Russia may have gotten to Clinton server | TheHill

Clinton Email: Clinton's Private Email Server Extremely Vulnerable To Hackers, According To Report : News : Headlines & Global News

Experts tell Gawker: Hillary’s shoddy private e-mail security is a potential national security disaster « Hot Air

Re: 2016 Election
 

I'll wait for what the FBI has to say about it rather than go along with the right's hopes and wishes as to what transpired.

"may have"
"extremely vulnerable"
"potential national security disaster"

So a lot of conjecture there.

Re: 2016 Election
 

Security logs show no evidence of hacking.
http://mobile.nytimes.com/2016/03/04...?referer=&_r=0

Re: 2016 Election
 

We'll never know and we could never know. If you're comfortable with a "potential national security disaster" it's a good thing you're not within a country mile of anything related to our national security. That casual, nonchalant view you expressed of our national security goes a long way to explain why in the Army CIC during the '60s we had an unwritten general understanding that normally, Democrats would not be cleared for security access above Confidential.

It's not usual for major powers to boast that they hacked into and stole vital national security matters from us. The closest we came was in the early '90s when some of the KGB files were available to western scholars - what they found would curl the neck hairs on anyone who cared at all about our national security. With the Internet and the way Clinton's email server was set up, it was an open invitation to compromise. Further, the stuff she sent and received was in the open on commercial channels.

We don't hope she'll be indicted. We are assuming Obama will keep the lid on it until after the election, then pardon her and terminate the investigation.

Re: 2016 Election
 

It's really difficult to take the GOP seriously on matters of race when it bangs on about the glory of "states rights" (i.e. the legal concept that made Jim Crow possible) and makes a concerted effort to deny the vote to minorities while describing Mexicans as rapists and griping about immigrants.

And they wonder why they can't win the votes of the people who they insult and smear at every opportunity, or why anyone would accuse them of being racist. Here's a hint: If you don't like being labeled as racists, then stop acting like racists.

Re: 2016 Election
 

As an outsider, I can't understand why so many on this thread gloss over the fact - and it is a fact - that Clinton is a war criminal. Really, that's something that should never be glossed over. How many more Middle-Eastern civilians does she have to kill before she turns you off? Trump may indeed follow suit, but he hasn't engaged in mass slaughter yet!

Re: 2016 Election
 

I'm willing to wait for facts rather than bluster on about conjectures as you so readily do.

She can't be pardoned if she's not charged/convicted of anything.

Re: 2016 Election
 

If it isn't birth certificates or blowjobs, then it's something else. The GOP's relentless pursuit of non-scandals.

Re: 2016 Election
 

I already stated that if a foreign power intercepted her emails it is something that will never be proved because no power would ever admit to having successfully done so - it would be one of THEIR top secrets. By design, the Russians, Chinese and Iranians don't have liberals and negligent lightweights like HRC involved in their national security apparatus. They take national security with deadly seriousness.

As for the pardon issue, you're simply wrong. The most famous example: Ford pardoned Nixon although Nixon hadn't been charged or convicted of any crime.

Re: 2016 Election
 

Well, Malala is an ISIS jihadist diabolically masquerading as an activist for girls education. Has personally conducted hundreds of suicide attacks. Shocking that nobody ever brings that up either.

Re: 2016 Election
 

I deal with 'internet security' for a living, and you are making a giant assumption here - that the 'official' servers of the US Govt. are any more secure than her 'personal' email server setup. Republicans like to suggest that the government can't do anything right, so why would they assume the security setup on mail servers is an exception? Don't we hear stories of the Pentagon Servers being hacked? Russia suspected of hacking Pentagon email server | News | DW.COM | 07.08.2015

As an aside, I will note that the full brain-trust of the government seems to be stumped by the security on a $500 iPhone right now and they are begging Apple to help them. So why would you assume that Clinton's (private) server setup was not up to an appropriate standard?

Have things changed since I last read that - at the time she made the decision to use her own server - that it was not illegal? Why does that seem to be forgotten? This article gives a rather in-depth analysis of the situation: Fact Check: Hillary Clinton, Those Emails And The Law : It's All Politics : NPR

Re: 2016 Election
 

Federal computers have already been hacked. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...thorities-say/

There's no evidence that Clinton's server, which was legal at the time, was hacked.

If anything, Clinton's email was probably more secure because it wasn't on a government network.

Odd how right-wingers who want to privatize everything are demanding a government monopoly on email, particularly when the feds have demonstrated that they aren't particularly adept at internet security.

Even more ironic is that the right-wingers are bellyaching about this after they whined about the launch of the ACA website. Hypocrisy comes easily to these people.

Re: 2016 Election
 

That was just hard to watch, wasn't it? I felt like I had to wipe down the TV when I changed channels.

Good to see under a Cruz presidency that we won't be wasting our time trying to improve our reputation in foreign affairs, either. I wonder just how far up Israel's arse he could get his tongue anyway.

Are you off your meds?

Re: 2016 Election
 

Turns out commie Bernie isn't above hypocrisy himself. Skip to the end of the following clip where it's revealed he supported a bill doubling immigration to bring in low skilled and guest workers:


No wonder his campaign is on its ass

Re: 2016 Election
 

You're splitting hairs. "Burdick v. United States, the 1915 U.S. Supreme Court decision, states that a pardon indicated a presumption of guilt, and that acceptance of a pardon was tantamount to a confession of that guilt."