If Clinton Wants To Be President, She Needs To Explain How She Could Make Such A RECKLESS Decision
Everyone, including Hillary Clinton, now agrees that the newly confirmed secretary of State made a mistake in 2009 when she decided, for the sake of “convenience,” to run her own email system out of her home in Chappaqua, N.Y., rather than use an official State Department email account.
But a new report by State's inspector general makes clear that within two years, Clinton's bad decision had turned into something far worse: a threat to national security, one that she repeatedly ignored despite multiple warnings.
Warning No. 1: The report, released last week, reveals that in January 2011, hackers were attacking her private server. Twice, the Hillary and Bill Clinton staffer responsible for maintaining the server had to shut it off to protect data held by America's top diplomat and the former president. The staffer notified State Department officials of the attempted hack, and Clinton’s top aides there emailed each other to say that “sensitive” matters should not be discussed with Clinton over email.
Warning No. 2: Two months later, the assistant secretary for diplomatic security sent a memorandum on cybersecurity threats directly to Clinton, warning of a dramatic increase in efforts "to compromise the private home email accounts of senior department officials" in a likely attempt to "gain access to policy documents and personal information that could enable technical surveillance and possible blackmail.” The memo to Clinton warned her that some personal email accounts had already been compromised and had “been reconfigured … to automatically forward copies of all composed emails” to the hackers.
More @ Link:http://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2016/05/30/hillary-clinton-email-server-inspector-general-editorials-debates/85159948/
= new reply since forum marked as read
Well, I think you've had an opportunity to tell me about any actual damage to the country or to any person as a result of Clinton's use of emails. While your inability to provide any such information is not dispositive, I remain convinced that no significant harm resulted from any mistake that she made. If you later come up with something responsive, please let me know and it can be considered. 
I place absolutely no weight on the opinions of Mika Brzezinski or her coffee mate. In fact, it has become so bad that I won't even listen to her. You might just as well show me a clip made by Trump.
When you hit the reply button, Jon's post was directly above the space you were typing in, with "Snowden" spelled correctly in bold letters, and still, you managed to misspell it three fucking times???
If I park in a handicapped parking place without a placard, I've violated a rule even if there is no harm. We don't disagree about that.
I think, though, that the people raising this email situation are suggesting that it is important enough for me to disqualify a candidate for president. I need more than a mistake or a rule violation to do that.
BTW, you have misspelled Petaeus. I take no offense, but there may be others who are not so forgiving.
But hey, rules, laws, what does it matter? Those are for other people to follow.
but does he admit that he made a mistake?
When did Sanders first discover that he was wrong?
Did Sanders disclose that he was wrong as soon as he discovered that he was wrong or did he conceal that fact for some period of time?
Does Sanders have any documents relating the discovery of his mistake?
Has Sanders destroyed any of the written evidence (e.g., newspapers he read, emails he received) relating to this mistake and its discovery?
You know, I'm not as convinced as you are that Sanders was wrong about any of this. Personally, I think that he has been right from the beginning.
I like Bernie. While I disagree with his bank proposal, I wish that nearly everything else that he advocates could be enacted.
In November, I am going to vote for the Democratic nominee. Like Bernie, I am going to do anything that I can to make sure that Trump never becomes president.
And, I trust that you'll do what you think is right.
I have already voted in the California primary. Personally, in terms of negative factors, I found Clinton's initial Iraq vote to be more significant than this email baloney, but both Clinton and Sanders brought with them both positive and negative factors for me.
My next vote will be in November. I am confident that even if I adopt your standard I will have little difficulty choosing the Democratic nominee over Trump.
Again, however, each of us has to make our own decision.
You're absolutely right that we may never know all of the things that our public officials have done to cause harm. We will probably never know the half of it.
But, you see, I have to vote (at least I want to vote). And, I have to vote based upon what I know. I just can't base my vote on things that I don't know even if I'll never know the things that I don't know.
I just have to do the best that I can with what I do know. And, then I hope for the best.
Trust your head and your heart. It's all that we have in the end.
As I understand it, you believe that some unidentified sensitive information in written form was handled in a manner such that unauthorized persons might have been able to read that sensitive information and, if they had read that sensitive information, they might then have used that sensitive information in a manner such that there might have been damage done to our country.
But, what significant actual damage was done to our country?
If it's serious enough and if Clinton caused it, she should lose my support. Of course, if this is just a lot of partisan coulda, woulda, mighta, then I have to stick with the candidate that I think will make the best president.
The world may never KNOW...
I just find it amusing/pitiable that you still think this will help Sanders somehow get the nomination.
and forbid they send us all into the chamber with the madman for their blindness.
that her judgment is highly flawed, and don't mind supporting such a flawed person for president.
