Clinton did not comply with federal email policy, watchdog finds| Reuters

I accidentally double-tapped my vote... which is why I voted 3 times. I wholeheartedly agree with your assessment.

Obama is fine if your daughter is assaulted in the bathroom, it wont affect him or his wallet. He is as dirty as the rest of the plague that is running amuck in Washington ATM.

Spot on "Gunny"

PO1 Jason Taylor - They weren't classified at the time, no label to remove.

CPT John Sheridan - Captain; The point I'm trying to make is that a breach of "regulations" may be a "violation" but may not be a "crime" and one only gets "indicted" if one is accused of committing "crimes".

BOTH "crimes" and "violations" can very frequently have "consequences". Equally, there are times when neither "crimes" nor "violations" have any NEGATIVE consequences at all.

PO1 Jason Taylor - PO; So far there is no evidence that Ms. Clinton had "the classification removed from thousands of documents" so whether she didn't do that "knowing it was the wrong this to do" is totally irrelevant.

PS - "Ignorance of the law" CAN be an "excuse" [and I leave it to you to work out under what circumstances that would happen most frequently].

Alan K. - Mr. Korb; Good question. I suspect that everyone is sort of waiting for him to provide something that looks remotely like substantiation for his claim. After all, how difficult could it be if even someone as technologically unsophisticated as I am was able to obtain unrestricted access to here eMail server, "mirrored" all of her drives, crack her encryption algorithm, and install an "auto forwarded" virus (into her BIOS) so that I never had to return to her eMail server again but still had complete access to every aspect of secret US foreign policy discussions and decisions?

[NOTE - The "if even" bit completely changes the complexion of that statement and is the part that is most likely to be left out of any anti-Clinton rant.]

SSgt Christopher Brose - Staff; If your house IS more secure than the SCIF you have access to, does the idea remain "stupid"?

COL Ted Mc Yes, the idea remains stupid, incredibly stupid, because it opens you up to liability you wouldn't otherwise have. But I find your response ludicrous because, in order to determine if your house is more secure than a SCIF, there would have to be some serious checking and testing and oversight and independent verification and certification. Nothing even remotely close to that took place when Hillary rejected State Department servers in favor of her own system.

To do what Clinton did would be the rough equivalent of a CFO of a major corporation deciding that he doesn't trust banks, and therefore will keep the corporate funds in his own home because there is a deadbolt on the front door. It's not just stupid, it's blitheringly idiotic.

Someone needs to check the library. I'll bet she has some seriously overdue books.