FBI opens Hilarious's email scandal

Weiner

They've had years to put this b1tch in jail (gaol?).

Guantanamo.

The average person couldn't even tell you what an email server is, she's a workaholic and took home work from the office.

I'm sure none of you lot has never taken anything confidential home from work if you still need to do some work.

Not much more than high level gossip, no one's lives were endangered, republican idiots have spent millions upon millions investigating her for years and years and what a surprise it's proven to be a total waste of taxpayers money. Hillary's far from perfect but she's a veritable angle compared to Trump, Bernie will be the best president they'll never have.

The uneven distribution of wealth over there is obscene, it makes you want to cry, ahving recently seen it first hand for ourselvesm but despite all this most people we spoke to were happy.

The country's hardly hanging by a thread as Trump would have everyone believe, hard to understand how some of his supporters and republicans can bear to look at themselves in the mirror given their reprehensible actions and disgusting lies.

Trump's been bankrupt numerous times and almost certainly been propped up by the russians for years, doesn't pay people for their work and is a sexist, chauvinistic, xenophobic, low life who has only ever looked after himself and all these low wage earners and middle class inbred idiots suddenly think he's going to be their champion, now that's funny.

Not to mention he's managed to lose a shiiitload of money on casinos, yep he's a genius businessman alright.

He's arguably exhibit A for why humanity is totally fuuucked

Clinton’s use of her own computer server (installed in the basement of her New York home) to send and receive emails while serving as Secretary was well known to close aides but kept hidden from the public until 26 months after her departure. Although it has clearly undermined her political standing, she resisted calling the decision a mistake, according to private emails among her aides in 2015 that were leaked in October.

Three controversies surround her decision:

1)      Clinton was able to maintain personal control over a trove of records normally considered public property, despite regulations and federal laws that demand emails be officially maintained to preserve a historical record and ensure officeholders are held accountable.

In this case, Clinton purged 32,000 of her emails before turning another 30,000 over to the State Department, which sought them to comply with a congressional demand. She said the discarded ones contained personal information not pertinent to her work. Trump said at the third debate that the email destruction (in early March 2015) occurred after she got a congressional subpoena for them, amounting to a criminal act. But Clinton’s aides say they actually ordered the destruction three months earlier; the fact that it was actually carried out two weeks after the subpoena was issued was accidental, not deliberate, they said.

In any event, the vetting of the now-discarded emails was done by Clinton’s longtime loyalists and no independent reviewers saw them first. So the public has no way to know for sure if her actions were appropriate or not. Even law enforcement officials seem worried that they didn’t see everything relevant to their inquiry into what Clinton did – as evidenced by the FBI’s startling Oct. 28 announcement that it was still probing the matter.

2)      The use of the private server may have made her communications less secure, and therefore compromised U.S. intelligence information, according to the FBI. After a lengthy probe, FBI director James Comey said “we assess it is possible that hostile actors gained access” to Clinton’s emails, which he said included seven email chains incorporating information that should have been classified Top Secret/Special Access, one of the highest levels.

3)      Clinton has made statements about the emails and the server that turned out not to be true. She said, for example, that none included classified information, but intelligence officials – including former CIA Deputy Director Michael Morell — said some contained information that should have been treated as highly classified.

They weren’t clearly marked as such in Clinton’s copies, and she has said she did not understand that paragraphs marked with a “C” were supposed to be considered “confidential.” But many intelligence professionals privately express skepticism about about this claim, arguing that Clinton would have regularly seen classified documents that incorporated such “portion” markings. And some FBI and State Department officials bristled – and resisted — when a longtime Clinton loyalist at the State Department, Patrick Kennedy, attempted last year to persuade the FBI that some of the emails deemed “classified” in retrospect should not be marked that way.


Is the criticism of Clinton fair? Did she know that mishandling her communications posed security risks?

Everyone at the State Department had reason to be vigilant about cybersecurity, given that the theft and leak of 250,000 of its diplomatic cables (by the U.S. defense intelligence analyst then known as Bradley Manning) occurred in 2010, a year after Clinton took office. Clinton notably said in an April 2014 speech at the University of Connecticut – a year after leaving office — that “at the State Department, we were attacked every hour, more than once an hour by incoming efforts to penetrate everything we had…When I would go to China, or I would go to Russia, we would leave all of our electronic equipment on the plane, with the batteries out, because this is a new frontier. And they’re trying to [go]…after the personal emails of people who worked in the State Department.”

But State’s own auditors said the issue did not get adequate attention under her watch: In late 2013, the inspector general warned that the department’s computer systems still had “control weaknesses” that could lead to security breaches. Comey said at one point that the FBI “developed evidence that the security culture of the State Department in general, and with respect to use of unclassified e-mail systems in particular, was generally lacking.”

Clinton has said she wasn’t told that routing her emails through a personal server was a problem, and that she didn’t see an all-hands-on-deck warning sent to all State Department officials – under her own name – in June 2011 that said, don’t use personal email accounts for official business because they’re not secure. She also said she initially didn’t know that she wasn’t supposed to bring her personal Blackberry – a potential listening device for foreign spies — into her office suite, where she regularly stored it in a desk drawer.

Doesn’t this indicate a startlingly casual approach to an important matter? And what about everybody else? How could she have communicated with others in the administration without them knowing about the irregular pathway those emails took?

The FBI probe makes clear that other top officials in the Obama administration – including the president himself, his national security adviser, and former CENTCOM commander and CIA chief David Petraeus – were aware that Clinton regularly used a personal email address (Petraeus sent roughly a thousand emails to it). But they have said they didn’t know she used a personal server.

Clinton has said the server was installed purely as a matter of convenience – that she wanted to keep using one smartphone for both personal and official business, without making her exchanges with friends and family “accessible to the State Department.” But wasn’t her real motive simply to put her emails outside of the reach of Freedom of Information Act laws that apply to such records?

CNN

Updated 2032 GMT (0432 HKT) November 1, 2016


Although Trump's single-point advantage over Clinton is statistically negligible, it is his first lead in an ABC/Post poll since May -- perhaps giving hope to the Republican presidential nominee's supporters, who believe their candidate's prospects were bolstered last week with the revelation that the FBI is reviewing new emails found on the laptop of Anthony Weiner, the former congressman and estranged husband of top Clinton aide Huma Abedin.


Still, it may be too early to gauge the electoral impact of that development, which broke on Friday. Clinton still leads Trump in the CNN Poll of Polls, an average of the five most recent national phone polls, including Tuesday's ABC/WaPo tracking survey, 46%-42%.
The latest ABC/Post poll showed a lack of enthusiasm among Clinton supporters. Only 45% of the Democratic nominee's backers say they are very enthusiastic about supporting her, down 7 percentage points since the start of the tracking poll and eight points lower than the share of Trump supporters who say they are very enthusiastic about supporting their candidate.

Agreed

Agreed

Agreed

History will be made  !

Regardless of who wins the presidential election this November, we will witness history being made.

If Hillary Clinton wins the U.S. presidential election, it will be the first time in history that two U.S. presidents  have slept with each other.

( that we know of )

If Donald Trump wins the U.S. presidential election, it will be the first time in history that a billionaire moved into public housing vacated by a black family.

Henry you are indeeed a moron it has been proven over and over that over 90% of the money donated to the clinton foundation indeed goes to charity and it ranks among the top charities in the world, let alone in the US, stop falling for Republican bullshiiit

I've often wondered to myself in a moment of quiet reflection....what sort of arseh0le would vote for Trump....I need wonder no more.

The "charity watcher" organisations you listed have links to the Democrat party.  For example charitynavigator.org has an ongoing relationship with the Clinton Foundation and was a member of the Clinton Global Initiative from 2012 to 2014 and its creators are known democrat donors.  Just lefties supporting other lefties is all these 'watchers' are.  The lefties like to keep the market cornered when it comes to the non-profit charity racket.

Ah...the white male uneducated target species of the Trump campaign has turned up.......Vote for racism or wallow in blissful ignorance....mmmmm tough call that....

I've heard those lines before, you sound like a parrot

what did you study?

any degrees?

You're going to have to try harder than that if you want to defend the indefensible nugget....my advice would be to give up and

embrace your racism....you're guilty by association anyway tbf....go on...look in the mirror and say the words...I am a

racist....better still do it like a true Trumpete...fold your index finger over to meet your thumb to make that silly o sign trump

loves and say the words with meaning.....I....AM.....A....RACIST.

Don't worry though Nugget.....'Everything is going to be just Great folks'.

These days people like you throw the word racist around so much now it's lost some of its meaning and impact, just so you can take some moral high ground.  By doing this it also makes it harder for those who are true victims of racism to heard amongst the noise.

Calling people a racist is not how you win an argument or get your point across.  I'm starting to think you may have a brain injury though.



Oh look Hillary is a racist

http://www.dailywire.com/news/10033/
hillarys-former-white-house-chef-says-she-called-chase-stephens#

mugget