You know who isn't in any legal hot water?

Although I previously posted this in the humor thread it perhaps provides the best answer to the questioned asked by the OP.

 

That section the national review is quoting from applies to national defense secrets, which has a higher standard. From what I recall, nothing properly marked as classified was found and it was likely low level classified information ... like talk of diplomate travel schedules.

 

You have your timeline wrong. She decommissioned the server and properly ordered it to be wiped prior to the Republicans in Congress asking for it... It was, however, due to a mistake by the company handling the server not wiped until after Trey Growdy asked for it....

At least, that is her completely plausible story, with a paper trail to back it up.

Regardless.of what you want to Believe, the NRA was properly fulfilled in accordance with the law and Clinton gave up possession of her classified emails once they were discovered.

Trump, on the other hand, intended to keep the classified docs and left a paper trail proving his illegal intentions.

 

Lol. OP posts.
I comment on the topic of OP.
OP gives me an "off topic".

Only on too hot.

 

Not a big fan of HRC, but she wasn't that bad if total votes counts for anything. Would be like losing a football game where you score more points than your opponent and third most in history but due to weird rules, you lose.

 

Pop vote is irrelevant though. Because campaigns strategize vote counts based on electoral needs. If a pub really pushed for pop votes in NY or Cali, they could get some. If a dem really pushed for pop votes in Mississippi they could get some.

The pop vote is completely meaningless until we reach a point where campaigns treat all voters equally.

 

It is completely on topic. She is in this position because she lost to him... And ironically complained that the election was illegitimate.

Her loss to him os the very crux of the topic.

 

she is no lady.

 

Everyone who didn't sell their soul to Cult 45 right now:

 

Well, let's be clear: Hillary got 3 million more votes; she won the election, but was appointed president by the un-Democratic Electoral College process which unfairly counts republican votes as much more than the same Democratic votes.

Was it ironic? Considering the following FACTS, no rational person could consider the election legitimate.

But the only thing that would be ironic would be if she had broken the law to try to overturn the election. Or if she had at least alleged massive election fraud, like Trump did. Or challenged it in court, et all, let alone over 70 times.

She didn't do any of those things. She made one action, a petition to join a filing that Stein, et al, had already made to compel the recount in Wisconsin. That is very standard, completely legal, and does not claim election fraud or challenge the legitimacy of the election; it merely asks that the due diligence be performed to confirm the wafer-thin margin pf the deciding electoral state.

Here are the FACTS that demonstrate that the 2016 election was no more legitimate than the confirmation of the last 3 SCOTUS Justices:

*Trump got illegal help from Russian election interference (proved by multiple republican-led bipartisan Congressional investigations, proved in the Mueller Report, proved by countless discoveries by the news media)

*Trump got illegal help from the years-long catch-and-kill campaign by The National Enquirer, the crime for which Trump is currently indicted in NY (among other crimes).

*Trump got illegal help from paying off a porn star (with campaign fund money) to keep her affair quiet.

*Trump got help that was not illegal, but it was immoral, unethical, and broke rigorously enforced standing FBI protocol of not releasing info about an investigation within a certain number of months of an election, when FBI Director Comey destroyed Hillary's otherwise insurmountable 12-point lead with 11 days before the election, by informing Congressional republicans that the FBI was looking into another laptop that might involve Hillary emails...even though he said days later that at the time the FBI know conclusively that the laptop contained nothing incriminating about Hillary...and even though at the time, the FBI had an active investigation into THE TRUMP CAMPAIGN COLLUDING WITH RUSSIA, that he DID NOT tell Congressional Democrats or anyone else on earth.

 

She campaigned like h3ll in Pennsylvania and lost there just the same as the Midwest states she didn't campaign in because the electorate broke a certain way.

 

She ran a very unintelligent campaign. The rules were known at the beginning and she spent so much time campaigning in places she was going to win big in.

 

That's not even close to true. In the final 9 days of the 2016 campaign, she had 5 stops in Florida, 3 in North Carolina, 3 in Ohio, and 3 in Pennsylvania and lost them all.

She lost because she got stuck in between a realignment where whites without a college education left the Democratic Party at a high level but the Dems hadn't started to win enough new votes from whites with college degrees that would start to define the new coalition in 2018 and on.

 

Agree. Just saying that when you get the 3rd most votes in history, the candidate screwed the pooch is a harder argument to make given that it the loss is at least partly due to a quirky system.

Be like a rule only for NC games that is based on who won more quarters rather than who scored the most in the game.

 

She also ran as if it were a foregone conclusion, which was stupid.

 

Or it’s like a best of 7 tennis championship where games won counts and not total points scored.

 

I don't think the data support that they left the party. Many blocs simply abandoned Hillary. Forty years of QOP character assassination and phony investigations and phony accusations even worked on a lot of Democrats. That along with the Russian interference, Comey intentionally sabotaging her campaign at the 11th hour, and the Bernie Bros who deserted America for their selfish myopia, created the perfect storm to deny her the presidency by the tiniest of margins.

 

Republicans will never agree with this or accept the historical facts about the EC, because no non-incumbent republican has won the popular vote since the 1980s. But the EC was created as a gift to the former slave owners who didn't want former slaves' votes to count but a fraction of white votes. It's essentially a national republican gerrymandering.

The result today is that we basically give votes to land. Republican votes count more than Democratic votes.

And thanks to gerrymandering, you have to again go back to the 1980s for the last time the QOP represented more votes in Congress than the Democrats, yet they have held majorities more than half the time. This is because gerrymandering has manipulated district borders to lump massive Democratic voting blocs into a smaller number of districts, and split much smaller republican voting blocs into a larger number of districts. More representation for fewer people.

And the Senate is even worse. The smallest 22 states have the same combined population as California. 15 of those states are red states. And yet, those 15 red states get 30 republican senators, while California gets 2.

All these insane unfair advantages, and the QOP still struggles to gain and keep majorities or the White House. Because even with the entire deck stacked in their favor, they still can't run from their failed Fascist and racist policies, and their belligerent refusal to govern.