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

[Tiberius]

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

Which ones? I think there's some confusion over the word "guilt" here. Guilt has a legitimate non-legal definition, and a legal definition. When I'm using it, I'm using the non-legal definition of the word. She can't be guilty of a crime that she hasn't been charged with yet.

Right...so even if she didn't mishandle anything at all.......

That's not what I'm saying. She has already mishandled data, and the evidence is clear. Thousands of emails on her server were classified. Now, they may not have been classified when they were sent / received, however there are requirements for storing classified data, and we do know that her server sent backups of emails to a private data storage company. So, at some point, classified documents were being transmitted and stored on a server which was out of Clinton's control. That's mishandling. It might not be illegal for technical reasons (i.e. Clinton may not have known about the backup process, etc.) but the facts remain, that she was the one who ordered the server to be built, rather than using the systems that the government provided, so the buck stops with her.

Because an email in which I proposition someone, is evidence that they accepted that proposition?

Again, accepting the proposition isn't the thing here, it's the attitude that Clinton thought that a solution for not being able to set up a secure call was to use an insecure one. That's *fine* if the call is allowed to be insecure, but not if the call is supposed to be secure. As I said before, from the evidence we have, it looks like the call was supposed to be secure. The suggestion that it be made insecurely demonstrates her relaxed attitude to security.

If, if, if. 

Yes, if. I think I've made it clear I'm not saying that she is guilty of any crime. I was answering the question posed, which was whether or not the contents of the call mattered.

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?  

Considering she seems to be able to use smart phones, arrange for a private email server to be set up, and was probably briefed at length on the server issues and possible questions she would be facing, I don't think I'm far from the truth when I say that her comment was less about incomprehension and more about trying to make a joke out of a serious issue. I could be wrong though.

A security review -is- an investigation.  Perhaps she's just an optimist, or perhaps she's a politician.  

That's not how the FBI director saw it. http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/fbi-direc...d=39048269

Did........what?  Had an attitude?  Didn't describe what was going on between her and the FBI with a properly ominous term?  

No. Read my quote again. I said "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."

The irresponsible handling of government data is what she did.

Surely you had many better reasons not to vote for her before this came out?

Before it came out? No, not really. It's that and everything that came after.