so, just getting an email from Clinton now requires security clearance? or mentioning her name in an email requires it?
Part of the FBI's reasoning in not recommending prosecution was that the classified information didn't end up in the hands of those who shouldn't have it. This changes everything - the information may well be in the hands of those who shouldn't have it. All it takes is ONE email with such information on this machine.
If it worked that way - that any offense by a subordinate is cause for impeachment - then probably every president would have been impeached. You need to get a grip. Plus the fact that you have absolutely no proof that even a subordinate did anything wrong. And no, you saying 'criminal' another hundred times doesn't prove your case. barfo
Only one of them is going to be in court responding to child rape charges and another court responding to fraud charges this month. It would be funny to have a president-elect arrested before he even gets to take office. Save money on impeachment, though.
The good thing about having a zillion Russian bots on your side is that you can say it a lot more than 100 times.
I've already talked to jlprk and 3RA1N1AC. I love listening to Trump just fart out stuff and act like it's fact based.
The FBI chose to get a warrant to look at the emails and took the extraordinary step to announce it to the world. http://www.politico.com/story/2016/...e-of-classified-information-disclosure-229891 Prosecutor Leo Wise said that in early 2012 the retired military officer "provided and confirmed classified information, including TOP SECRET/SCI information" to Sanger and "confirmed classified information" to Klaidman. The prosecutor did not mention the still-classified Stuxnet program, but the investigation in question is known to involve release of information about the reported joint U.S.-Israel drive to use computer viruses to set back Iran's nuclear ambitions.