I'll do whatever I want, your highness. I defend my rationale for using them (or criticizing them)...instead of arbitrarily dismissing only those with conservative bias as you routinely do. BTW, where is your admonishment of Bowfinger for citing such biased garbage?
You certainly did assert he was hindering the investigation. Your words:
Yep. That's what I've been saying all along.
More speculation and spin. The FBI will need to determine this, not Fox and its faithful acolytes.
The op-ed you cited made a unsubstantiated conclusion that clearly serves your agenda. Get real.
I also gave my rationale for linking that column. That you choose to dismiss it as "biased garbage" only shows how loyal to the RNC you are. Aside from the title, it's a good overview of what happens when email discussions touch on topics that may be or may become classified.
I didn't ask you or anyone else to accept his conclusion. As I told Werepossum, " One will have to make his own judgment about what to accept from it ..." My focus was the discussion about how email and potentially classified topics overlap, and how this has traditionally been handled. He offers an inside look at a subject I've not seen covered elsewhere. If you have something better to offer, you're welcome to share it too. Or, you can continue to be gratuitously bitchy about something that challenges your talking points. As you say, you'll do whatever you want.
Your whole shtick this thread has been to aggressively confront anyone who presumes or hints at Hillary's guilt without substantive evidence. I find it "ironic" that you cite a highly biased op-ed as credible when it effectively does the same thing by declaring her innocence instead, all without any substantive evidence.
I don't think you have fully thought this out. If Clinton didn't know that she had classified documents with her name on the server, then she was clearly not qualified for be SOS. Hence, she would not be qualified to be POTUS. Now if she knew, then that would just mean that she is a manipulative sociopath. I would never say that a sociopath should automatically be unqualified for POTUS. After all, there are so many of them at top levels of government. Bottomline is that by defending her as ignorant and incompetent, you should be also saying there no basis for her being president.
The Op-Ed piece doesn't declare her innocent of wrong-doing. It points out that this type of mishandling of classified information (if that's indeed what's happened with Hilary) is extremely common (because working within the classified system is so burdensome), and violations are routinely ignored by those tasked to protect the nation's security.
You are faithfully parroting the spin, to be sure, but that spin is highly misleading at best. The so-called "classified documents" you keep chanting qualify as documents only in the most technical sense of the word. Based on everything released so far, there have been exactly zero "documents" as the term is commonly used. Instead, we have email conversations that touched on areas that may be considered classified. Even that is debatable since in many cases the "classified" bits are things that had already been reported in the media.
The Clintons paid a federal employee to maintain the server. This is possibly a criminal offense on the part of the employee. If maintaining the server was truly government work then the employee was double dipping, which is illegal. If the work was not government work then the employee was taking employment with what was almost certainly a prohibited source (the Clintons). The scandal just went from "not much" to a what is very likely to be a career ending investigation for the employee. The Clintons will likely slip past it.
