In addition to the server, Hilary "abandoned secure line to use home phone"

[The Grand Nudger]

Well, we do know some things, that's the point. Her emails have been released, details of her server setup were revealed, etc. I'm not trying to frame my questions to imply guilt, I'm trying to have a discussion about whether the content of the phone calls matters. As I said, to some degree yes, and to some degree no. I'm not saying she definitely talked about sensitive information, but I'm pointing out what I interpret as evidence that she may have.

I can appreciate that you may not intend to do so, nevertheless..many of your comments depend upon the assumption of guilt.  

Also, I don't think I've ever said I would consider her guilty if she was found not to have done anything illegal. I've maintained that the laws are complex, and she may be found not-guilty on a technicality (that is, what she did was technically not illegal, even if it looks to the general public to be illegal).

:looks below:

What I have said, and what I stand by, is my statement that even if found not-guilty, she is most certainly guilty (in a non-legal sense) of the most irresponsible handling of government data in history.

Right...so even if we can't prove that she mishandled anything at all.......and that if can only happen after she's been charged in the first place......

True, but her emails suggest it did take place, considering that she asked her aide to call her. Without access to phone records we can't say for sure, but I'm commenting on the evidence at hand. I'm not stating that the call took place, or that she said anything sensitive on an unsecured line. I'm going by what evidence we have, that she tried for an hour to set up a call on a secure line, and then gave up and asked her aide to call her on an insecure line.

Because an email in which I proposition someone, is evidence that they accepted that proposition? IDK, I;d be surprised to find that no one in her camp would have cautioned against it.

If the rules say that you can call on an insecure line to discuss non-sensitive information, then I wouldn't expect Clinton to try for an hour to set up a secure call if the discussion she wanted to have was about non-sensitive information. Thus, in my view, the call was supposed to be about sensitive information. If the call happened and sensitive information was discussed, that's a huge deal.

If, if, if. 

No, the attitude that we have evidence for. I'm talking about her general attitude to security and technology, not just in regards to this call. The attitude that caused her to set up a private server rather than use her government email address. The attitude that caused her to tell aides to strip headings from a fax and send it insecurely (http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/pres...x-by-email). The attitude she had when questioned about whether she had ordered to server the be wiped (to which she responded: "with a cloth or something?").

You and I might be working with different definitions for an attitude.  Her response would imply incomprehension to me.  I know...I know, how clueless can an elderly woman be...about computers and the terms we use to describe an action?  

This isn't a manufactured attitude, this is an attitude that is actually well documented in the emails that have been released, and her public comments on the issue. The fact for instance, that for months she has tried to play down the FBI investigation as a "security review", which ultimately got the FBI director to confirm that yes, it's an actual investigation.

A security review -is- an investigation.  Perhaps she's just an optimist, or perhaps she's a politician whose survived countless scandals tossed at her due in no small part to her reactions to those scandals.  

So again, I'm not stating she's guilty of any actual crime. I'm not a lawyer, I don't know what kind of evidence they need for an indictment or a conviction. However, what I comment on with some degree of experience, is security issues and handling of sensitive data. With that in mind, I again stand by my statement, that the evidence has already shown that Clinton is guilty of the most irresponsible handling of government data in history. Guilty in the sense that she did it, not in the legal sense.

Did........what?  Had an attitude?  Didn't describe what was going on between her and the FBI with a properly ominous term?  What government data did she handle irresponsibly...and what evidence do you have -of that- not available to the rest of us?

She's irresponsible when it comes to technology and security in my eyes. Whether that irresponsibility had some criminal undertone is yet to be determined, but for me, the facts we have are enough to dissuade me from voting for her.

Surely you had many better reasons not to vote for her before this came out? Meh. In the end, as we both agree..either she did something illegal or she didn't...but there's been too much crying wolf around her of late - and this little gem comes from the same folks who tried to bury her before. Every election cycle we get treated to this sort of thing, and maybe I'm just too cynical...but I watch people get worked up about these scandals, and I see that they influence the polls and our votes, and 9/10 times they're just hack jobs- the remaining 1 they have a kernel of truth enough to ruin a career but not enough to secure a conviction. I can understand that from your point of view, she seems to have mishandled data by virtue of her server, for example, but you don't get to determine what mishandling means, in context. What does, are those technicalities you've commented on so fondly. Personally, I think she's dirty as shit and slimier than a frog...I just think you're being too hasty in swallowing this one whole. It would be an almost inexplicable mistake for a career politician with her history...not the call, mind you, it ever seeing the light of day.