Things Are Different Now...

Merry Christmas!

Popular Update...

The Left will not drop the "popular vote" victory by Hillary.  It is a fact that she received more votes (as Mrs. Bannon would say - despite the fact that we know every election they DO find voter fraud in the way of dead people voting, entire boxes of ballots filled out in one handwriting, etc.).

However, the Left can not decide if they want to scrap the Electoral College because they think it had something to do with slavery, or that the Electoral College was a product of the genius of Alexander Hamilton, whom they now love because he is a black musical on Broadway, and electors should not cast their ballots for Trump because the Left wants Hillary (the logic of that argument escapes me).

Either way she received more votes, and the Right would be claiming the same thing (though I believe with less tears) if the roles were reversed, and, none of it matters.

Part of the genius of the Electoral College is that it apportions the voting according to the states - so that while a populous state DOES have influence in relation to it's greater population, it does not overwhelm the influence of the smaller states. We are a Republic.

It is worth noting...(drum roll please)...that if you remove San Francisco and Los Angeles Counties and 4 of the 5 boroughs of New York City...Trump wins the national popular vote.  Not by a lot, but it points out the lunacy of Hillary's claim to be the choice of the people nation wide.

Nation Wide Popular Vote Totals

"The Left always wants to change the rules
 after the game has started...bigly"

Hillary Clinton	65,844,610	(+2,864,974)
Donald Trump	62,979,636

Liberal Nests Popular Vote Totals

	Hillary Clinton	Donald Trump
San Francisco	312,443	34,493
LA County	1,893,370	620,285
Brooklyn	595,086	133,653
Queens	473,389	138,550
Manhattan	515,481	58,935
Bronx	318,403	34,424
	4,108,572	1,020,340

Remove those counties and Trump wins 61,959,296 to 61,736,038, a victory by 223,258 votes.

The Right must, and I believe does, acknowledge that Hillary received more votes than Trump, but the Left must acknowledge that it does not matter...

That Was Then, This Is Now...

This is a dangerous precedent for a President. Obama was Campaigner in Chief for Hillary, and now he is trying to undermine the credibility of the next President.



In this fist video Obama mocks Donald Trump for his claims that he distrusts the establishment with regards to the election.



In this video Obama's spokesman claims Donald Trump benefited from Russian hacking, without mentioning that the emails "hacked and leaked by the Russians" were actual emails written, and actual subjects discussed by corrupt political insiders.

Stop It...

L.A.-based Lawyer Sues FBI Over Clinton Email Warrant

First of all, people do stupid things all the time, not all those things deserve a story on Fox News. I could just leave it at that. But I clicked on the article, and it angered me, so I will post about it. That is what blogging is all about.

I work with lawyers all the time - and frequently I find that they can not see the forrest for the trees. This clown is suing the FBI to see the search warrant that lead to the search of Anthony Weiner's devices (phones and computers).

Again, I should stop right there - he read an article in the NY Times, and based on that, filed a lawsuit.

Several quick points - he wants to see the search warrant to see if there was probable cause, and mentions that probable cause is mentioned in the Constitution.  A search warrant is a document that a law enforcement officer provides to a judge proving...probable cause. Next - the probable cause he seeks was pretty much all over the press - Anthony Weiner was using his device (phone or computer) to send messages to an underage person. The nature of those messages made the transmission to a minor...a crime.

But, then again, we live in a country where people sent millions of dollars to the accounts of a person who received 1% of the presidential votes, to fund a recount.

What Bias?

The New York Times admitted it can not be unbiased, and then after the election of Donald Trump, admitted they were out of touch with the American voter.

From the Washington Post today:

It is a wonder that Republicans ever win elections...

Happy Thanksgiving...

In honor of the first Thanksgiving, the NFL gave us Cowboys vs Redskins...

...among other things.

Hillary Spotted Again...

There she is, under the pile of burning ruble...

Popular Perspective...

All this nonsense about the Popular Vote vs the Electoral College is just like the Left, they always want to change the rules, change laws, after the game has begun. The far Left want a full Democracy, either because they do not understand our nation's history, or because they never liked it. I believe it is largely the former, because are not they the ones who claim to want to protect every conceivable minority (not race minority, statistical minority).

Election by County (can not find one by Congressional District)

The original system created by the Founding Fathers was the Electoral College. Put one way, our elected leaders elect our leader. This is a Republic. Each Representative and Senator gets one vote. Then it changed, for the better in my opinion. Each State gets the number of votes equal to it's number of Representatives and Senators. However, the State's get to decide how to divide those votes. And almost all have chosen winner take all in a popular vote (does not sound like they gave it much thought).  1828 was the last time a significant state split its electoral vote when New York went 20 for Andrew Jackson and 16 for John Quincy Adams (Maryland always split their vote until 1836 when either they changed it, or they all got on the same page - I have not researched it).

People saw winner-take-all in both the Republican and Democrat Primaries as both were hotly "contested" (Bernie contested the vote, but the final counting was not really a contest). My informal survey results - people do not like the winner-take-all for primaries...unless their candidate won.

I believe in the Electoral College, but I believe in awarding votes by Congressional District (not county). In that way, Presidential Candidates would have "battle grounds" all over - not just in a few states. It would have the added benefit of BEING WHAT THE COUNTRY WAS FOUNDED ON. It would still be a "popular vote" and every vote counts and matters, but it would be more representative. Instead of just letting the Congressmen vote for who they want, each district would tell them who to vote for. The Senators could be assigned by the statewide popular vote.

To say this would then just mirror the House of Representatives would ignore the Senate - and also would ignore the fact that in places like southern New Jersey where Democrat Hillary Clinton won 54,472 to 47,882 in Atlantic County, yet Republican Congressman Frank Lobiando won 53,679 to 41,386.

So let me give you some perspective. My analysis...the voting public nation wide in the current voting scheme is basically 50/50. I will concede that. So far the 2016 results look like this:

Hillary Clinton 61,324,576
Donald Trump  60,526,852

That is a 797,724 vote lead by Clinton. Democrats (the goofy ones, but some of the leaders too) claim that number of votes is a mandate to throw out the founder's vision of a Republic, or a reason for Republican Electors to vote for Clinton (that one seriously shows the lack of understanding of who "electors" are).

Perspective. Clinton is winning California by 3,071,770.  So in the rest of the country, Trump wins the popular vote by 2,274,046.  Three times Clinton's lead in the nationwide popular vote. Unfortunately, California still matters, and she is winning the popular vote - but that is like giving the win to the football team with the most yards, not the most points. Trump gets the W, and now they will treat him just like they treated W.

What a Race...

Have we ever had such a vitriolic presidential campaign?

Yes. Pick up a history book.

In their own words:





Oh, by the way, as things turned out, I have ALOT of pant-suits and tunics for sale, I guess I won't need them, barely worn:

Simple black

Subtle grey

Tactical Tunic

God Bless America!

Voter ID...

 - There is no need for early voting (unless for medical reasons, etc.)

 - There should be no mail in ballots

 - No same day registration

 - Above all  - Photo Identification MUST be required

Democracy...

Vote on Election Day...

Every vote counts...because we have to counter the fraud

Interview Gone Bad...

Good stuff...

Math...

I got this in an email that is going around the internet...but I liked it anyway:



* U.S. Tax revenue: $2,170,000,000,000

* Fed budget: $3,820,000,000,000

* New debt: $ 1,650,000,000,000

* National debt: $19,271,000,000,000

* Recent budget cuts: $ 38,500,000,000


This is where most people tune out.  Let's now remove 8 zeros and pretend it's a household budget:

* Annual family income: $21,700

* Money the family spent: $38,200

* New debt on the credit card: $16,500

* Outstanding balance on the credit card: $192,710

* Total budget cuts so far: $385



Got it now?

It is simple. We need a robust economy, and we need to cut spending. Focusing on taxing the rich only gets people elected, it does not solve problems.

In Their Own Words...

Please sir, hit that campaign trail. Please, GOP, use their own words against them...

Foreign and Domestic...

I do not have a lot of time to post, but I still read, and I can cut and paste...

from NY & NJ Bombings Show Islamic Terrorist Ideology Must Be Confronted, a National Review article by Andrew McCarthy:

"The attacks spurred by this ideology, like those carried out this weekend, are international terrorist attacks, regardless of whether the operatives who execute them are affiliated with or inspired by a designated international terrorist organization. There are no “homegrown” attacks because the ideology is alien. There are no “lone wolves” because the wolves are part of a huge pack — a fundamentalist Islamic anti-Western movement that has millions of adherents, some percentage of which will always be willing to take up arms and kill for the cause.

Pro-American Muslims need us to help them discredit the fundamentalists. We cannot do this without openly acknowledging — as, for example, Egyptian president Abdel Fattah al-Sisi has courageously done — that the roots of jihadist aggression are Muslim scriptures. This must not be obscured by political correctness. The scriptures in question must be acknowledged and reinterpreted in a manner that confines them to their historic context and nullifies a literal interpretation of them in modern life..."

We were lucky that this terrorist living in New Jersey was a hapless loser. If he would have practiced more, trained better, we could have dozens dead. The police officers that responded to the call when the terrorist was found, were shot in the chest and through the windshield of a patrol car before they returned fire...striking the terrorist in the leg.

As the terrorist living in St Cloud, Minnesota showed, all it takes is a knife - to terrorize the lives of many. Imagine a dozen knife attacks in American malls on Black Friday.

Many police officers receive VERY LITTLE training with their firearms, and most of it is static target shooting on a flat range. Luckily for the rest of the people at the mall, that is not the case with a growing number of citizens.

The actions of the African Muslim immigrant who stabbed those people for being Americans will forever change the way those people look at malls, Africans, Muslims, etc. Most of the rest of us will forget about it soon...

Happy Labor Day...

This could be the start of something wonderful...




.....or not.

God Bless America...

Statistics...

People misuse statistics all the time. In today's world we see something on the news, or something that "goes viral" and it is as if it becomes part of our own daily lives. The other day I got to take a long car ride with a man just released from prison. He said he was afraid he would not recognize America anymore. He was concerned about using a public restroom because of what his reaction might be to all the transgenders (by the way, Apple changed that to transponders - shame on you Apple, get with the program).

In our world of sound bites, tweets and viral videos, does anybody think past their first reaction anymore?

If a tree falls in the woods, and nobody is there to put it on YouTube, did it happen?

I Could Survive...

I don't know this guy, but this is the funniest thing I've seen all week (close second was an article regarding the Olympic gymnast that admitted all the news coverage regarding her leadership and inspirational comments to teammates was actually…just talk about Harry Potter)...

And the Masses Cheered...

I guess the good news is that she is a proven, chronic, liar...

Trump That...

That was the best speech I have ever heard Trump give. I don't like to watch the conventions - but I couldn't turn this off. I had the remote in hand, with a finger on the channel-up button during Chris Christie's speech - but he had the best speech of his career. Then Trump!  I didn't know he was capable of delivering a speech like that, in that way…

It was conservative, it was inspiring, it was American.

…but it was Donald Trump Jr.

I don't know anything about Junior - but that was a great speech.

Could It Be...

That my doppelganger could be the GOP VP Nominee? 

Emboldened...

I write this post full well knowing it may send Mrs. Bannon's sanity further into a downward spiral. But I know, she will be stronger for it. Or something like that…

Let me start by paraphrasing parts of FBI Director Comey's announcement:

The elements of the crime were met, Clinton and others violated the law, not by intending to harm America, but by intending to subvert the law written by our elected leaders for the purpose of protecting America.

Further, Clinton's public statements that she made on numerous occasions were not true, she did not have permission from the people at the State Department who are authorized with granting that permission, she sent and received information that was classified and marked classified, she directed others to do the same, she did not turn over every email that she was supposed to, and while some were located, some will never be recovered, and she used multiple mobile devices.

But the key parts I will quote directly:

"...there is evidence of potential violations of the statutes regarding the handling of classified information, our judgment is that no reasonable prosecutor would bring such a case. Prosecutors necessarily weigh a number of factors before bringing charges. There are obvious considerations, like the strength of the evidence, especially regarding intent. Responsible decisions also consider the context of a person’s actions, and how similar situations have been handled in the past."

You can remove the word 'potential' from the first sentence - it is obvious from all of his previous statements that the potential was reached. They used the word 'potential' because they consider that they would have to prove the violations to a jury beyond a reasonable doubt. This is like when a murderer - who is obvious to everyone, the murderer - is referred to as the "alleged" murderer. Law enforcement, or the prosecutor does not (outside of Baltimore) issue charges or go to trial themselves thinking they have reasonable doubt. They must be sure they have the right person, and their language always reflects that. That is why the FBI (other law enforcement entities too,  but the FBI is the best 'no comment' outfit out there) does not make public statements like this (i.e. it could taint a jury, sway public opinion without all the facts, etc.). If the FBI comes out and says somebody is guilty, most people will believe it is true, even without a trial.  Which is why I do not like the word 'potential' here. If Comey took questions - which he never would - the first one should have been "Did Hillary Clinton violate federal law?" And to be snarky, "Did congress write that law?" And before you were removed from the room, "Why did congress write that law?"

While for sure the FBI and law enforcement in general considers whether a "reasonable prosecutor would bring such a case," still, this is an amazing public statement. Many times the FBI disagrees with charges not being brought. Many times the law enforcement component of an investigation, especially one involving government officials, simply provides the facts to the prosecutor - a sort of recusing of opinion. It does not occur in a single meeting, or a presentation (i.e. "therefore we recommend charges…"). Rather, the FBI and the prosecution team work together and opinions are known and discussed throughout the investigation by the people working it and their chain of command.  Often, if there is friction, or sometimes even the appearance of a divergence of perceptions, calls are made, supervisors get involved, more agents are brought in to gather more evidence, etc.

A simple analogy would be a he-said/she-said case involving domestic violence where both parties are slightly injured, nothing too harmful, neighbors called 9-1-1 due to the ongoing violence, but yet nobody can be determined to be the aggressor. A police officer will interview everybody involved, take photographs, and file a report. Often the officer will arrange for one of the parties to voluntarily 'go somewhere else for the night.' And often, the officer will leave by saying, "I'm filing a report with the prosecutor, and the prosecutor will decide if charges will be filed." Which is true, but also sends a message that if any other evidence is collected, either from this incident or another subsequent incident, that may tip the scales as to whether charges are filed and against whom, and so serving as a warning to knock it off.  But, it is also true that the officer will actually file no charges and leave it to a prosecutor who will make the decision. Long example, but if the officer said, "I am taking the time to do all this, and due to the injuries I observe, clearly a crime took place, but I am going recommend the prosecutor not file charges because I have never seen anybody get charged in a similar matter," what do you think the combatants would do? A prosecutor makes the decision on whether or not to file charges on many factors, including the likely success at trial, i.e. is there enough evidence to convict, but also often - are there enough resources ("this is a weak case, of little import, no victim waiting for justice - and the office has too many other cases that need attention" - this is prosecutorial discretion. Prosecutorial discretion is NOT "I don't believe in immigration law, so I won't prosecute it" - but that is another post for another time).

Which brings me to the most astounding part of Director Comey's statement:

"...we cannot find a case that would support bringing criminal charges on these facts. All the cases prosecuted involved some combination of: clearly intentional and willful mishandling of classified information; or vast quantities of materials exposed in such a way as to support an inference of intentional misconduct...We do not see those things here."

Huh?  First and foremost - you have never seen a case like this. (The closest I know of would be the case of former CIA Director Deutch being pardoned by Bill Clinton for knowingly mishandling classified material.  But Deutch didn't direct subordinates to do so, Deutch didn't have a family charitable organization that collected hundreds of millions of dollars from foreign countries, and Deutch was not running for President. Who was the "reasonable prosecutor" considering that plea deal? Has Comey met him?)

"Although we did not find clear evidence that Secretary Clinton or her colleagues intended to violate laws governing the handling of classified information…"

This is simply not true on its face. Who wrote this? It should have been "…intended to cause harm to the country."   It is clear that Clinton and her colleagues intended to violate the law that says you can not store classified information in an improper manner.

Often, though not always, people on the Right, conservatives, are Rule of Law people, fact oriented, empirical evidence driven.  I see the FBI as trying to leave politics and emotion out of it. You do not see this on the Left - they want to use the power of government to change things, to fix things. That is why you see prosecutions of emotion (Tom Delay's conviction in Texas overturned 8-1, Virginia Governor Bob McDonnell conviction overturned 8-0, etc., etc., and now all the Baltimore police officers winning at trial), that is why you see Obama on the wrong end of a lot of 9-0, and now 8-0 decisions at the Supreme Court - he is trying to fix things he wants fixed the way he wants them fixed, doing what he believes is right, without considering the Rule of Law.  The FBI agents and AUSAs working the case against Hillary simply could not think outside the box, a box that says do not do things differently, use precedent, follow similar examples, follow the rules. The FBI does not like to influence elections. But that is exactly what they did here.

Fidelity, Bravery, Integrity...

From the Horse's Mouth...

Happy Birthday America…

July 4, 1776 was just the beginning of a long battle for freedom...

Trust...

Andrew McCarthy writing at National Review on the meeting between former President Bill Clinton and Attorney General Loretta Lynch:

"... who on earth could be more trustworthy than (a) a former president who has been impeached and disbarred for giving false testimony that obstructed judicial proceedings and (b) the steward of American history’s most politicized Justice Department, who swore to enforce the laws right after testifying (at her confirmation hearing) that the executive branch need not enforce the laws?"

"..and then your dad said, 'I did not have an inappropriate conversation with that woman, Miss Lynch'.."

Weapons of Peace...

The vast majority of rifles in America are peaceful, moderate firearms, that do not want to hurt anybody, and do not believe in the violence caused by the 1/10th of 1% of the so-called radical "assault rifles" that have hijacked the 2nd Amendment for their evil purposes.

***UPDATE***

SWAT Team Kills Workplace Violence Hostage Taker

"A SWAT team shot and killed an armed suspect who took hostages at a Walmart in Amarillo, Texas Tuesday afternoon, investigators confirmed, saying all the hostages are now safe. 

Police identified the gunman late Tuesday as 54-year-old Mohammad Moghaddam. 

We do consider this a work-place violence situation at this point," the sheriff's office said." 

Likely this is an example of a radical assault-style-rifle, not tied to any other rifles, a lone wolf rifle if you will, hijacking the peaceful idea of not having your constitutional rights infringed. Poor Mr. Moghaddam was at work, minding his own business (the article does not mention Moghaddam's religion, but it is Texas, so it could be Catholic, Pentecostal, Lutheran, etc., you never really know with gun owners), when the gun assaulted his sensibilities. This is clearly an example of workplace assault-rifle violence, since Walmart is a place where people work. But barely, Walmart does not provide full medical insurance to every single employee, and starts part-time employees at the minimum wage, and has only two types of bathrooms. One might ask - why hasn't more assault-rifle violence taken place at "workplaces" like this one.

Talent...

I don't watch these shows, but this was funny, even if it was set up to be that way...

Memorial Day...

Say Anything...

From the State Department's OIG Report:

...Secretary Clinton’s production was incomplete...For instance, the Department of Defense provided to OIG in September 2015 copies of 19 emails between Secretary Clinton and General David Petraeus on his official Department of Defense email account; these 19 emails were not in the Secretary’s 55,000-page production. (emphasis added)

So You're Sayin' There's a Chance...

If the Donald selects the Newt as his running mate, we may yet see NASA return to the forefront of man's exploration…

And guess who's gonna pay for it…that's right…the Martians.  

Science...

Can't argue with it...

Happy Friday!

I Will...

I am a conservative...maybe a conservatarian. I have yet to find anybody I 100% agree with on all issues. Even in people I think I completely agree with politically, I'm sure I can find something we disagree on (until of course, I have the time to completely explain my point of view, thereby showing them the error of their ways).

I am a member of the Republican Party. I left the party years ago. I left the party and registered as an Independent some time during the George H. W. Bush presidency.  I don't remember exactly when, but John McCain was my Senator, and I was fed up with the nonsense of the legislature, the bureaucracy, and I hoped for change. I voted for Ross Perot. He was going to change things.

He did.

I learned.

I had no say when I was not a member of the party. And…I helped create everything that Bill, and Hillary are.  Those were precisely the unintended consequences that true conservatives should be looking out for.  A conservative does not stand on principal just to stand on principal. A conservative must think things through to logical conclusion (or as Thomas Sowell says, think past Stage One). A conservative should support an effort to help the poor - but in the end, it must actually help the poor.  A conservative must have principals, but those principals can not get in the way of reality.  They must work to shape our reality. That is a large part of what separates the Left and Right.

And by Right, I do not mean the Republican Party.  I mean the Right. I still have problems with the Republican Party. But I have come to learn, like Ron Paul the libertarian, and Bernie Sanders the socialist, that standing on principal alone will get little to nothing accomplished.

Donald Trump was not my candidate. Out of 17, he was number 18. I would not vote for him in a primary no matter what.  The primaries are over. I will now vote for Donald Trump. I am not concerned if he can beat Hillary. I will vote for Donald Trump. I am not concerned that I do not agree with him on 100% 80% 40% 20% a lot of things.  I know that I disagree with Hillary on 99% (sometimes she votes for free-trade or fair-trade things, though obviously only after the Clinton Foundation has secured agreements)(and then, you're right, those "free trade" agreements are probably full of "unfair" things, so maybe its 100%) of things.

I did the math. I agree with Trump more than Clinton, and therefore I will vote for Donald Trump. He does not represent me. In fact, most of the time, he disgusts me. He is not a conservative in any way, and he is a Republican in name only. But either he or Hillary will be President, and there is nothing I can do to change that.* So if I do not vote, since I would never vote for Hillary, that would be helping her.  I will vote for Donald Trump.



This post is already long, so I will not go into the details of why Hillary would be a dangerous President, that is for another post, I will not go into the details of why not a "true believer" like Obama, Hillary could be more dangerous, that is for another post. Okay, now I will stop going into the details...


From National Review (yes, the anti-Trump National Review):

True True Conservatism by Andrew McCarthy

...In general, I humbly hope to posit arguments that are good enough to bend things, however slightly, in the right direction. Then I move on to the next round, because I expect no permanent victories or defeats. I continue to think the promotion of liberty is not just an abstraction but works when applied practically. I would not narrowly target the message to evangelicals and to conservatives who already agree with me. Still, politics is always give-and-take. You have to be prepared to listen as well as to advocate; “compromise” is not a dirty word as long as the public good is actually being advanced. Surrender camouflaged as “compromise” and “moderation,” however, is cowardice in a time of fiscal crisis, national-security threat, and the very real possibility that our governing framework is being dismantled irreparably. 

The temporary triumph of Trumpism does not change that.



*I would venture that even if indicted, Hillary will remain the nominee. I work primarily violent crime, so no, I'm not working on that.

Just Sayin'...

"did…knowingly remove such documents...with the intent to retain…at unauthorized locations, aware that these locations were unauthorized for the storage and retention of such classified documents and materials…"

Where you and employee of the government? Check.
Did you possess materials containing classified information? Check.
Did you knowingly retain the materials in an unauthorized location? Check

That's the elements folks.

But just for fun:

Did you direct subordinates in emails to remove classification markings from materials and send on an unsecured system?


Check.

We are at War?

US Drone Strike Kills More Than 150 al-Shabaab Fighters

Are we at war in Africa? Did we invade Sudan? Will this story be talked about in the media after today?

If we had a Republican President, or even a President Trump, these questions would be asked, over and over, and politicians in Washington would be questioning how we knew Americans were not among the campers.

Did we get UN approval - was NATO notified? Did congress authorize an attack in a sovereign country?

[I am not against droning a terrorist camp - if our intelligence community said so, I am good with it. I just think the President should be getting on the news and announcing this, rather than it being a below the fold news story.]

But take note, what if it was a Tomahawk missile strike from a US ship.  Would the news sound different?  What if it was a team of SF guys, in and out, with CIA guys to exploit the intel that was bound to be there.  Would that make more news?

Also note - the story says they were planning an attack on US forces.  US forces where?

Sounds to me like we are at war - missiles, dead guys, planed attacks on US forces.

Well Then…

Smoking Gun, Ballistic Match...

…finger prints, DNA, what exactly does the press think the FBI is looking for in the Hillary Clinton emails?

I think the press, and a large percentage of the public, is looking for an email like this:

From: HRClinton@myself.comTo: SydBlumRE: End Run around Congress 

Syd,
Once you sell the weapons to the opposition in uh, that country west of Egypt, make sure to get them to those guys we talked about at the uh, 'undraiser-fay. Ya know, the uh, 'ebels-ray in -yria-say. 

Toodles,Hills
PS Tell Bill I said "hey" at the foundation dinner next week.

In all these debates, interviews, etc., not a single reporter is smart enough to ask follow up questions (maybe they ask, and it is edited out, or she moves on - I'll give them that) when she makes a useless coverup statement regarding her use of personal email?  She has often remarked that previous Secretaries of State had used personal email accounts - ignoring that they did not do that exclusively, and not for classified material.  She has also never accounted for her direction to Department employees the consequences of using personal email accounts for official business.

But - the biggest dance has been when she has, over and over again, said that the emails were not "marked" classified.  This has been shown to the public, and the press, as pointless - as the State Department email system is what adds the classifications.  Gmail does not have a drop-down menu to add SECRET or other markings.  The email system used by the State Department is stand-alone - NOT connected to the Internet. One could manually type the classifications on a regular email system - but that would be an obvious breach of the law.  Obvious to some.

In a previous email Hillary was exposed telling an advisor to just send the information anyway, since it was available to the public in a different form.  The advisor replied that he did not have access to the secure email server - so he did not even have the information.  So if it was in the public, he could have just found it on the Internet and copy/paste.

Now, in the latest email dump, Hillary TELLS AN ADVISOR TO REMOVE THE CLASSIFIED MARKINGS.  Let me repeat that. Hillary wrote, "...turn into nonpaper no identifying heading and send nonsecure."  Identifying heading is the heading that identifies the classification of the document.  Game. Set. Match.  She can not claim that she does not understand when she is instructing a subordinate to send information on a nonsecure setting, without the classification that it has been given.



Example:

By the way, two notes - FBI agents are regularly reminded that if they view classified material such as on Wikileaks, it is still classified, and they may not view it - and the FBI agents that are investigating this matter, are reminded that their mandatory annual Classification Marking training is to be completed by June 30, 2016.