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

[Tiberius]

But how can you vote for Trump when he hasn't released his taxes?  For that matter, how can anyone vote for someone who will not disclose any policy stance?

I know releasing tax returns is something candidates do as a sort of tradition, but there's no requirement. In addition, I thought the reason Trump wasn't releasing his tax returns was due to him being audited and his lawyers advising him not to release them whilst that was happening.

It's a good thing her opponent is still Donald Fucking Drumpf.  If the Republicans were really so worried about the EMAIL scandal, then they'd have nominated someone electable and more moderate instead of the fuckheads they put up.  Drumpf is a piece of shit xenophobe who wants to ban muslims from the country (unconstitutional), wants to punish women for abortions (he went back on it, but the fact that he said it makes him fucking crazy), wants to nominate a supreme court justice who thinks it's perfectly okay to punish people for having gay sex in their own home, doesn't have a goddamn clue about how to run the country, and the only thing he's running on is building a goddamn wall that he claims Mexico will pay for (even though that's not going to happen, and even if it did it wouldn't do any fucking good because apparently despite working in real estate development he doesn't understand that there are these things called ladders and ways to dig under said wall)

Right, but when you have a choice between Trump and Clinton, a lot of independents aren't going to vote, or they will vote third party. So the question is, which candidate will lose more independent support, Trump or Clinton, because that's who will lose the election.

Do we know -anything- about it?  No.  You consistently frame the questions to imply guilt, and even go so far as to say you would consider her guilty -of something-  if she was found not to have done anything illegal.

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.

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).

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.

-and since we don;t know whether or not the subsequent call ever occurred....or what was spoken about if it did, or whether procedure was followed in response to the tech failure in that call that may have never taken 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.

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.

The attitude that you've manufactured, whole cloth..out of very literally nothing? Even the story we -do- have reports that she suggested steps be taken to protect sensitive data. Here's a "for all we know" for ya. An aide leans in and says, "I'm sorry, Mrs Clinton, we can't do that".

I'm not much of a fan of Hillary either, but this is an election cycle, and this was dug up by a group trying to make sure she wouldn't win. It is -very- common to try and bury a candidate in controversy. The truth of the accusations are almost entirely immaterial. She hasn't been indicted, and even if indicted, she will need to be convicted...otherwise all of this is hot air.

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?").

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.

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.

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.