Comey has said it’s understandable that Clinton did not realize some of this unmarked information was classified. But he also has said she should have recognized by the topic of discussion that some of these emails did not belong on a non-classified system, given that 36 of these email chains had “secret” information and eight had “top secret” information.
This doesn’t account for the 30,000 destroyed emails or the devices she had that were physically destroyed or the server she kept in a bathroom. All of this would land a federal employee in jail.
She destroyed evidence from multiple devices. This was someone who served on a committee investigating Richard Nixon’s private tapes. It wasn’t an accident. It was a deliberate attempt to circumvent the law.
It’s not the first time she’s done this. Her law firm docs magically disappeared over a business deal that put 15 people in jail.
You mean the 30,000 personal emails? That were personal? That were not discussing government business? That were discussing, among other things, her daughter’s wedding? The personal emails that she had every right to delete were deleted?
Yeah, federal employees better not delete any personal emails off their Yahoo accounts, or Magiver’ll get ya!
Thus illustrating the problem inherent in comingling official government emails with personal emails on a private email system - a problem that someone operating at Clinton’s level should have seen coming. Government employees are supposed to avoid even the appearance of impropriety.
So you think a GS-level federal employee would not end up in jail (or at the very least, unemployed) for conducting a large part of her job through a personal email account?
Well, according to Comey, no one in the history of the United States had ever been prosecuted for doing what Clinton did. So I guess that’s your answer.
They were operating at the same high level as Clinton, and apparently enjoy the same level of immunity. Are there any GS-level employees known to have done it?
Hilary Clinton did not serve on a committee investigating Richard Nixon’s private tapes. Your assertion is specious and misleading. Were you, perhaps, simply offering us “alternative facts”?
Did you read the article you cited? It says things like:
And the article cited by Baron Greenback says:
Lots and lots of “if…” and “It’s not clear…” - in other words, not factual reporting but speculation. Obama fought hard for a smartphone while in office and eventually got one - a highly secured one. Until I see more than idle speculation, I can’t believe Trump cowtowed the security PTB into letting him use an unsecured phone.
ETA - if the speculation proves true, I will be among those screaming for justice.
I believe the conclusion that he’s using the same phone as he used prior to taking office is based on the metadata attached to his tweets. And this site concludes that he’s using a Samsung Galaxy S3, which is a model first released in 2012. I believe that while in office, Obama used a smartphone built and/or secured by Lockheed Martin rather than a consumer-grade device.
Should they be doing party business while they’re on the government payroll?
Not a rhetorical question, btw. While I honestly don’t know if that’s against any laws, it seems a bit iffy. I know the President, being the leader of his party as well as the head of state, of necessity does both party and government business. But no such necessity exists for his staff.
Jail? No. A good chance of losing one’s job, though.
All true, but we still don’t know what steps may have been taken to secure Trump’s consumer grade phone. I can speculate as well - maybe it has been altered to never connect to unsecured Wi-Fi and has double authentication on everything possible. The point is that we don’t know and the articles say as much.