The state.gov email system is also an unclassified system from memory. My gmail is "capable of transmitting classified information", the question is whether any classified information was knowingly transmitted through unsecured means. All signs point to no, and again from memory, there are a bunch of emails directing people to call her via secured lines to discuss things.
Had she used a state.gov email and gotten a boatload of FOIA requests for her emails the same process would be occurring before any of those were released, where invariable some information would likely be post-hoc classified.
I probably should have made something clear that may not have been clear in the previous post.
It is not merely that the unclassified systems are capable of transmitting classified information (hell, a flip phone could do that), it's the fact she elected such a system, in which she would inherently assume responsibility for, to facilitate her work related correspondence. In other words, that system (of which she's personally responsible for) was what her colleagues understood to be the primary means of communicating with her via email regarding work. Any number of things could have gone wrong with that, including an infiltration into that system that she would have been held personally responsible for.
If Hillary would have continued to used her government issued email address, and a breach in protocol resulted in classified material being sent to that email address, or even an infiltration, there is no assumed responsibility on Hillary's part. Yes, the investigation would play out similarly, but ultimately, the servers would belong to the government, not Hillary.
The point in the distinction of an "unclassified system capable of transmitting classified information" is that had she elected to use an unclassified system that was INCAPABLE of transmitting classified information, then there really wouldn't be a problem with her using a private server for her work-related e-mails. It's not an argument for her using such a system, but to hypothetically contrast a situation in which the use of an unclassified system for government work would probably not be problematic, with a situation in which the use of an unclassified system for government work could very well be problematic.
I'm just glad we moved past 'you said March instead of February therefore incompetence'.
Actually, I still hold this position. This is a serious matter. Getting the dates right are important when you need to account for all activity that's being investigated. Getting the dates wrong equates to partial non-compliance.
I'm not talking about it anymore because it doesn't seem like a topic of interest in this thread.
I thought this was ivysaur's position. Has he commented lately?
It's my position as well. This isn't a matter of forgetting the month when you started your job. When an investigation is being conducted by the government, you comply to the fullest extent possible. Initially, Hillary did not do this, and yes, I find it to be incompetent that she had no record of when she first opted into a system that could have the ramifications that it has now.
When she first elected to use a private server, if she did not understand the potential ramifications of doing so, she should have asked. She definitely knew that it was different than using a government issued email. Once understanding the potential ramifications, it would have been to her benefit to account for when she first decided to opt in to this system.
I don't even see how my position is controversial. I suppose if you're only looking at it from the perspective of being 1 or 2 months off, you may not see it as a big deal. But in an investigation like this, being off by 1 or 2 months WOULD be a big deal, if those months accounted for some kind of criminal activity. Just because the emails didn't turn out to be incriminating, it doesn't mean that we, or more importantly, the State Department, should have assumed that the emails wouldn't have turned out to be incriminating. Understanding this, you would see why it would be incompetent to not fully comply with the government's request.
