Every justice on the Supreme Court will tell you that the Constitution cannot be amended. The barrier is too high now for the 21st century. Academics the world over have categorized it as "entrenched."

This constitutional limit is widely recognized and listed as such in text books and encyclopedias.

Hillary sure does know the "brain power" of her supporters. "An amendment." Heh.

something, you'll never get it. Gee, where have I heard that before.

Also, months back when Hillary was asked her position about overturning Citizens United, her answer was, "If necessary."

My, how she has evolved (into a worse liar).

And Adam B, all slappy happy over Hillary doing the video, guess who will be rubbing elbows with the elite when they come to town next week... he's one of the elite.

a .gov account and moved to her own server. But she specifically said she only wanted to use one device for convenience (and of course wouldn't want her private emails on government servers).

So the story that government servers don't work doesn't hold water.

Sorry, but I disagree bigtime. What HRC did was nefarious, and then Comey compounded it. I wrote a few essays about it, I hope, hope, hope you will read them:

Email and Cybersecurity for Dummies: a Primer to help w/OIG report about Hillary's Private Server

Hello friends, FYI I've put my blood sweat and tears into this diary ... it occurred to me that non-technical people would not intuitively understand the enormous risks to national security that Hillary took by using a personal email account hosted on a private server. I'm part technologist and part teacher - so I tried to create something that non-techies could be able to read. ... National secrets are not something to be trifled with. But most people don't really understand exactly what Hillary even did. Used a personal email account? That doesn't sound so horrific ...

One Law for Thee, and Another for Me - Comey actually said it out loud: if Clinton had been someone else, his decision would likely have been different

So the Clinton machine is out in full force, claiming that the FBI found Clinton to be innocent. They like to boil everything down to a simple case of guilty or "hogwash"; spinning the truth is what they do. Their claims are lies, of course. Comey did not find Clinton to be innocent; no, what he actually did was find America's system of Justice to be guilty. Let me repeat that: Comey actually pronounced America's system of Justice to have a deeply engrained double-standard that allows the elite class to escape prosecution, and because of that double-standard, "no reasonable prosecutor would bring such a case" against Clinton. Comey spoke with a straight face, without any hint of awkwardness or hesitation; his words had been crafted so carefully that most of us didn't even realize the meaning of what he was actually saying: "Yes Virginia, some 'men' are above the law." And in a huge win for feminism, I guess, the very first 'man' who was ever shown to be above the law was actually a woman. Hillary Clinton, you go girl!

There are two different things going on here. Neither of them is "man these gov't computers are old, let's use something that works." Hillary conspired with her aides to avoid scrutiny and FOIA requests. That was the only purpose for the server. That said the two issues are:

One, the hullabaloo over classified material protection. I happen to think it was overblown and agree she didn't do anything criminal, in the sense that the laws she clearly broke are themselves broken and should never be enforced.

Two, the double-standard by which Hillary is protected from prosecution where almost anybody else would not be, and by which her professional career is not only not jeopardized but apparently enhanced when anybody else would never work in a position requiring clearance again. Likely not even for a company where any employees needed clearance for that matter.

They will be investigating that now as they well should.

And just because she wasn't indicted doesn't mean she didn't break the law. She did but she got away with it so far.

When you keep repeating case closed as if to shut up any further discussion. That might work at GOS.

Comey used weasal words, in the same manner that Clinton uses weasel words, to mislead people. You think you heard him say, "there is no case here," because he carefully crafted his words in order to give that false impression to naive listeners. But that is fucking NOT WHAT HE LITERALLY SAID. Here are Comey' actual words:

In looking back at our investigations into mishandling or removal of classified information, 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; or indications of disloyalty to the United States; or efforts to obstruct justice. We do not see those things here.

He did not say she did not break the law, he essentially said that nobody else has been prosecuted. Guess what? If you are the first person to break a certain aspect of a law, then nobody will have been prosecuted before you. That's a nice loop-hole, eh? Just be the first person to break a law, and you get to go Scot-free due to "lack of precedent".

What Comey is actually saying is that HRC is the first person to have been so stupid that she was GROSSLY NEGLIGENT without actually meaning to put the info at risk. In fact, she very much did not want to put the info at risk, THAT IS WHY SHE WAS USING HER OWN PRIVATE SYSTEM. But she was an arrogant and ignorant twat who didn't understand the huge security risks she was taking.

Why was she using a private email server? That my friend is the $64,000 question. SHE HAS NEVER SAID SHE DID IT BECAUSE THE *.GOV SYSTEMS WHERE CRAP, OR THAT THEY DIDN'T PROVIDE ENOUGH SECURITY. She said she did it out of convenience, because she didn't want to carry multiple devices, and that turned out to be a LIE. HRC needs to be asked the "why did you set this up" question UNDER OATH - Comey didn't even fucking ask her that question.

To anyone but a Hillary Zombie, it is clear that she set it up because she wanted to control access to the information. SHE WANTED TO EVADE THE REQUIREMENTS OF FOIA. But Comey considered FOIA to be outside of the bounds of their investigation, he was only narrowly looking at security. How nice for Hillary!

To recap, Comey said that all the cases prosecuted involved some combination of:

1. clearly intentional and willful mishandling of classified information;
2. vast quantities of materials exposed in such a way as to support an inference of intentional misconduct;
3. indications of disloyalty to the United States;
4. efforts to obstruct justice

Re 2: Everybody else who has put such vast quantities of info at risk has always done it "on purpose". HRC was the first person to be so very stupid on such a grand scale. But the law that she broke DOES NOT REQUIRE INTENT, Comey just on his own initiative added that part in in order to let Clinton go free.

Re 1, 3, and 4: According to John V. Berry, lots of folks have been stripped of their security clearance at a minimum for accidentally mishandling classified information. Berry is a lawyer who specializes in security clearances; his opinion is that “Hillary Clinton got off easy”:

My legal practice involves representing clients denied or at risk of losing their security clearances. Facing the same set of facts outlined by FBI Director James B. Comey about Hillary Clinton and her aides, my less-well-known clients — whether an entry-level government contractor or a GS-14 federal employee — would be in serious jeopardy of losing their security clearances. In fact, I cannot foresee a situation in which an ordinary employee facing such allegations would be able to keep a security clearance with the types of concerns raised in the FBI findings. [...]

Clinton’s use of a personal server for classified government email, without appropriate approvals and security, would normally be treated as a serious security violation. Another security violation would be the storage and transmission of classified materials using personal (nongovernmental) means off site. Everyone involved in the setting up of the server, the transmission or storage of such information or knowledge of same would have had separate security obligations to follow regarding the rules for protecting classified information. Finally, providing classified information to defense lawyers who are not cleared to review such documents (as was alleged to have occurred) could also constitute a security violation for a regular employee.

According to Berry, lack of intent to cause harm is not a factor that weighs heavily in the outcome of many cases:

Consider the government contractor who comes to my office to see me based on allegations that she accidentally took home a personal hard drive containing low-level classified information. Even if the information at issue was not important, it is not uncommon for such an individual to lose her security clearance, be placed on leave and then terminated. This outcome varies, based on the facts of an individual case, but the risk is significant. Other common clearance cases involve government contractors or federal employees who accidentally email classified information to their homes and then face the serious risk of losing their security clearances.

"did she deliberately build her own system for nefarious purposes? The Feds say no. Case closed."

The feds say that she did not intend to build her system so that it was vulnerable to security issues. That is true.

But they didn't even ask her why she set up her system. They did not make any comment about her intention to evade the requirements of the Federal Records Act and FOIA (Freedom of Information Act) - which are the key means by which citizens can monitor the actions of elected officials. Obama pledged to be the most transparent administration ever, and he sang praises to the Federal Records Act and FOIA when he was inaugurated. Turns out it was all bullshit.

Email-gate is not a nothing-burger, it is a tremendously important issue. I very much hope that you will read my diaries on these subjects.

a FOIA request. And the State Dept didn't have the info because she wasn't using the govt server. Then, again, I may have it backwards.

It may be a right wing nut job site, or it may be valid. You decide, but it does have good information about the Clinton's foundation tentacles.
http://www.redflagnews.com/headlines-2016/fbi-insider-leaks-all-clinton-...