Whispering 18,865 Posted May 11, 2016 Share Posted May 11, 2016 1 hour ago, MJHolland said: Mishandling of top secret information that could pose a national security risk if hackers got it? Lol are you drunk or just dim?! The information wasn't classified when she sent the emails. It wasn't hacked. The state department server, however, was hacked. There won't be charges because nothing done was against the law. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
LebaneseDude 6,146 Posted May 11, 2016 Share Posted May 11, 2016 4 minutes ago, Whispering said: The information wasn't classified when she sent the emails. It wasn't hacked. The state department server, however, was hacked. There won't be charges because nothing done was against the law. You know what's the funniest bit of all? That private server is more secure than the state's. People can make the argument that it is still wrong, but to use "security" as some sort of justification is known to be untrue to anyone who understands how vulnerable government systems are in general. Edited just now by LebaneseDude. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
MJHolland 12,725 Posted May 11, 2016 Share Posted May 11, 2016 34 minutes ago, LebaneseDude said: It was never top secret lol ... even Obama said it was just information that you can obtain in any open public source, but didn't want to be publicized. It wasn't even classified at the time. It was only retroactively classified later. Also hackers never got it, and Clinton never had any malicious intent by sharing it with anyone. There is no precedent for someone who only exhibited negligence for getting indicted, especially when nobody ended up getting harmed. If people are furious about it then they should probably look at themselves first. We have laws on the books right now that say it's illegal to hold classified information that WAS in fact on her server in a manner that is not authorized nor protected by the federal government. Unless you think she's above the law, she's clearly broken it. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
LebaneseDude 6,146 Posted May 12, 2016 Share Posted May 12, 2016 58 minutes ago, MJHolland said: We have laws on the books right now that say it's illegal to hold classified information that WAS in fact on her server in a manner that is not authorized nor protected by the federal government. Unless you think she's above the law, she's clearly broken it. It's not fact that the information on that server was classified. It's fact that it wasn't at the time and has been retroactively classified. I don't disagree that it was against the law, but quite blowing the issue out of proportion. Edited just now by LebaneseDude. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Featured Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.