Can anyone please explain this email thing to me in a non partisan way

[Thrive]

Title says it all. I am Canadian, and I think both your candidates are right-wing. It's like you are choosing between Stephen Harper and the editor of The Rebel. (Right wing, and right wing extremist). Now, that aside:

Hillary Clinton is the most qualified candidate to be president in decades. She has seen the office up close as the first lady, has done decades of public service and has oodles of experience (arguably, this works against her in some circles). Now, she might be corrupt (I haven't seen any proof for or against that) but no one can claim she has no experience.

So, why are people so hung up on this email thing? So she had a private server, she was lazy and not tech savvy, and she admittedly fucked up. I just don't understand what the big deal is anyway? From a purely security standpoint, government servers or not arguably more secure then the private one she used. Hackers are going to get in either way, look at the DNC emails that are being leaked. I just don't understand how this is a big deal.

Can someone enlighten me?

She, either accidentally or purposefully, leaked classified information, and anyone else would have been in jail if this had happened. It's literally an example of the corruption in her campaign and family. This was already seen by her being broke when she left the white house with Bill, to being filthy rich, but it only continues to illustrate it.
I hate Trump, I really do, but she is the furthest from most qualified. I can sit here and debate it if you'd like, but in this post I won't as this isn't the initial point of the thread. Honestly is sickens me that people couldn't unite for once in this country and vote 3rd party, even if they don't like the 3rd party. We had a chance to change how things work and we let two jokes prance around on the world stage.

[Dendrek]

The WH directed the SD to withhold a bunch of evidence, thats probably where the most obvious examples of her criminality exist - not to mention possibly Obama's since he lied and said he had no idea baout the server yet its been proven the WH added HRC's new email addys to the WH whitelist 6 different times so they knew it wasn't on the official whitelist of gov addys ie outside non-gov server.

Plus its not that there is no case, because there is she broke 5 laws, its that nobody in power wants to prosecute her.

Her "I didn't intend" and "I dont reca'l" response to every question was good enough for them because they have invested interest in making her President.

A Dem President works with a Dem head of the DOJ who influences the Dem friendly head of the FBI all while being supported by the evidence blocking Dem SD?

They were so blatant with their corruption that Lynch felt it was perfectly ok to have a public meeting with B.Clinton on the tarmac while H.Clinton is being investigated by her office.

I can't imagine a better person to respond to a request for a nonpartisan response.

- - - Updated - - -

Sure, Hilary wanted a easy way to trade secrets with people and if was got caught (which she did) should could deny deny deny deny and get away with.. again.

So Hilary committed literal treason? You're not exaggerating? Literal, actual, high offense treason? Interesting take on reality there, my friend.

[caervek]

Can someone enlighten me?

Basically, she did something illegal, then she had evidence destroyed to cover it up (which is also illegal). However due to the destruction of evidence it cannot be proven beyond reasonable doubt that she did anything illegal so nothing is being done about it.

This is great if you believe in the sanctity of law, innocent until proven guilty, etc etc. But also lame if you also believe that criminals shouldn't escape justice due to technicalities (especially if that technicality is hiding the crime via another crime).

[Vorkreist]

Title says it all. I am Canadian, and I think both your candidates are right-wing. It's like you are choosing between Stephen Harper and the editor of The Rebel. (Right wing, and right wing extremist). Now, that aside:

Hillary Clinton is the most qualified candidate to be president in decades. She has seen the office up close as the first lady, has done decades of public service and has oodles of experience (arguably, this works against her in some circles). Now, she might be corrupt (I haven't seen any proof for or against that) but no one can claim she has no experience.

So, why are people so hung up on this email thing? So she had a private server, she was lazy and not tech savvy, and she admittedly fucked up. I just don't understand what the big deal is anyway? From a purely security standpoint, government servers or not arguably more secure then the private one she used. Hackers are going to get in either way, look at the DNC emails that are being leaked. I just don't understand how this is a big deal.

Can someone enlighten me?

Because shes a corrupt piece of shit responsible for selling weapons to ISIS through Arabia, she gets "donations" from all cancer mega corps, pharma,private prisons,banks for which she returns in favours. And a lot more.

[Slant]

Because shes a corrupt piece of shit responsible for selling weapons to ISIS through Arabia, she gets "donations" from all cancer mega corps, pharma,private prisons,banks for which she returns in favours. And a lot more.

What a reasonable and wholly rational explanation of an argument. I'm sure you win a lot of debates.

[Wyrt]

Because shes a corrupt piece of shit responsible for selling weapons to ISIS through Arabia, she gets "donations" from all cancer mega corps, pharma,private prisons,banks for which she returns in favours. And a lot more.

"I didn't get the result I wanted so obviously she's corrupt!"

[caervek]

Because shes a corrupt piece of shit responsible for selling weapons to ISIS through Arabia, she gets "donations" from all cancer mega corps, pharma,private prisons,banks for which she returns in favours. And a lot more.

That's called politics.

[zenkai]

He said in a non Partisan way and almost all of you said it in a Partisan way, LOL.

[Super Kami Dende]

That's called politics.

That's called bribes which is corruption.

[Poopymonster]

Things happen, both sides get into it LOUD ANGRY WORDS are spoken words, lots of money is spent, lots of stuff is found. Whether it's what they wanted to find is up for debate. Both sides try to spin it as a VICTORY FOR TRUTH FREEDOM JUSTICE AND AMERICA(tm) then bitch they didn't get everything they wanted.

And they call it the Aristocrats.

[ItachiZaku]

Can someone enlighten me?

You really won't get a good answer here, this sight is hard core lefties. 90% Killary clit lickers. The other 10% can't breathe with Trumps cockadoo down their throats.

- - - Updated - - -

That's called politics.

Unfortunately, 100% correct. I hate Notre Dame. Fucking hate them. Nuke goes off in South Bend? Fucking awesome. However, if you pay me 5 million dollars a year to curb my hatred and put on a hat... /shrug I liked House of Pain, shamrocks and shenanegans n shit. you know, it's all good, haters gonna hate.

[caervek]

That's called bribes which is corruption.

Which is called politics.

I.E the "aid" money western countries give developing nations isn't for aid, it's for the warlords/politicians there to embezzle and then give lucrative contracts to western companies who employ western workers and pay western taxes.

[Venant]

Which is called politics.

I.E the "aid" money western countries give developing nations isn't for aid, it's for the warlords/politicians there to embezzle and then give lucrative contracts to western companies who employ western workers and pay western taxes.

No that is corruption and there are actually laws against US companies paying bribes to foreign governments. Furthermore they don't pay western taxes, they offshore the profits to avoid that. And they don't employ western workers, they employ the equivalent of slave labor in 3rd world countries.

If you really believe this is politics then I hope it is obvious to you why that type of politics needs to change.

[unbound]

Title says it all. I am Canadian, and I think both your candidates are right-wing. It's like you are choosing between Stephen Harper and the editor of The Rebel. (Right wing, and right wing extremist). Now, that aside:

Hillary Clinton is the most qualified candidate to be president in decades. She has seen the office up close as the first lady, has done decades of public service and has oodles of experience (arguably, this works against her in some circles). Now, she might be corrupt (I haven't seen any proof for or against that) but no one can claim she has no experience.

So, why are people so hung up on this email thing? So she had a private server, she was lazy and not tech savvy, and she admittedly fucked up. I just don't understand what the big deal is anyway? From a purely security standpoint, government servers or not arguably more secure then the private one she used. Hackers are going to get in either way, look at the DNC emails that are being leaked. I just don't understand how this is a big deal.

Can someone enlighten me?

High level - she did something that wasn't ideal, which makes her look shady, so the partisans have come down harshly on both sides (conservatives think she committed crimes, liberals don't think she did anything wrong whatsoever)...and the media has done their best to keep the ball in the air due to ratings.

Reality - she kept a private server to handle her personal and work e-mails (not a good thing). This was done for convenience, but, at the time, wasn't entirely uncommon. Some of the e-mails are confidential, but the majority of those were determined to be so after-the-fact (not uncommon). Additionally, some of the ones labelled as confidential at the time were inappropriately marked as so (i.e. they weren't actually classified).

Overall, she didn't do anything criminal (despite what conservatives want to think), but she shouldn't have set up the system that way (despite what liberals want to think). Bad optics to be sure, but, taken in context of real problems and issues, completely over-inflated overall.

Here is a great, neutral analysis - https://medium.com/the-curious-civil...eda#.suugyne0k

Here is a pretty good, but has a liberal slant, analysis that includes some interesting context (e.g. of course she deleted the 33,000 personal e-mails, "presumably because she did not want Trey Gowdy and Jason Chaffetz to rummage through her inbox leaking whatever they happened to find amusing to area journalists") - http://www.vox.com/policy-and-politi...andal-bullshit

[zenkai]

Title says it all. I am Canadian, and I think both your candidates are right-wing. It's like you are choosing between Stephen Harper and the editor of The Rebel. (Right wing, and right wing extremist). Now, that aside:

Hillary Clinton is the most qualified candidate to be president in decades. She has seen the office up close as the first lady, has done decades of public service and has oodles of experience (arguably, this works against her in some circles). Now, she might be corrupt (I haven't seen any proof for or against that) but no one can claim she has no experience.

So, why are people so hung up on this email thing? So she had a private server, she was lazy and not tech savvy, and she admittedly fucked up. I just don't understand what the big deal is anyway? From a purely security standpoint, government servers or not arguably more secure then the private one she used. Hackers are going to get in either way, look at the DNC emails that are being leaked. I just don't understand how this is a big deal.

Can someone enlighten me?

This is pretty much all you need to know.

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-31806907

[Astigmatizm]

As much as I personally dislike Clinton - the FBI have gone deep into her email investigation and concluded that she should receive no charges.

The main reason the Emails are used as an argument against her candidacy is for the purpose of Bad Judgement/Carelessness/Negligence (Comey said as much).

She created a Private Server for use by the SD. The reason why this is such a big deal to -begin- with is because a Private Server will not have typical.gov protections and government hardware. Running on commercial software/hardware makes it immensely easier for malicious users to hack into (and its been confirmed by the FBI that they -were- hacked by foreign actors).

So in the end - her decisions resulted in (confirmed) high-level classified US information being leaked. While she had no -intent- of committing any crimes, her negligence and poor choices resulted in the safety of US secrets being compromised.

Now because we will never see those secrets - we will never KNOW just how bad those leaks were. You can go into the realm of speculation at this point.

[Independent voter]

The Republicans have a grudge about something so they are pushing it. Maybe during the Reagan years the Democrats opposed a nominee for the Supreme Court or something like that. So they check their "Book of Grudges" and decide to get revenge by sticking it to Hillary.

[kail]

He said in a non Partisan way and almost all of you said it in a Partisan way, LOL.

Here's as non-partisan as it gets: She derped, fucked up, did something stupid, etc. Die-hard supporters are wrong to shrug it off (it is a big deal when handling IT), die-hard opponents are jumping the gun to assume she kept a private server for malice/treason (i.e. selling government secrets and such).

[Danner]

Title says it all.

Can someone enlighten me?

It's politics.

Hilary Clinton stored all incoming and outgoing emails on a persona mail server. The webserver was not secured in accordance to guidelines for handling state secrets. The emails may or may not have contained state secrets. If they did, Clinton storing said emails on her private mail server would be careless handling of state secrets; as just about any foreign agency could have hacked the server and snooped on US any emails with Clinton in the To, From or CC field.

The FBI investigated a few months back. Much pressure happened on the investigation team during this investigation, in seemingly both directions, so it is very unclear how independent this investigation actually was. The FBI found lots of classified emails on this server, but concluded that since none of those documents were technically classified at the time of receiving (they were retroactively classified later), no rules were technically broken as a result (insert meme about technically legal being best kind of legal here). The report used strong words like "extremely careless", but ended up acquitting Clinton of any lawbreaking activities.

So yeah - it's politics. You have to make of that what you want to make of it.

Team Trump want to milk this for everything it is worth.
Team Clinton want to brush it off as baseless mudslinging.

The last chapter is the FBI re-opening the investigation with full fanfares. This lasted a week or so, until they closed it again with no change in conclusion from the last time. This too was politics. As yourself who would be interested in such fanfare a week before the election, and ask yourself who would be interested in shutting it down (again), and you probably have the key stakeholders in this little drama identified.