The last sentence is pretty key to this. We know the State Department email system was breached at least twice while she was Secretary of State.

There is no proof she ever had her aids do that.

Pure speculation.

Nope, using a private server was not illegal.

I'm sorry, I'm going to need a citation for the claim that "there are large date ranges missing from the copies she supplied (particularly around times when suspicious activity may have been taking place, such as the stuff related to Benghazi)". As far as I'm aware, the only confirmed "missing" emails are 15 from Blumenthal. Everything else has turned up.

I was pretty stunned when they granted him immunity. All he has to do is mimic Col. North and say, paraphrasing Col. North, "Everything I was told to do was legal and proper, everything that was a crime I take full responsibility for".

As soon as that happened, the case disappeared unless he decides to testify against her. Even then, it's not a strong case, unless they have written proof.

Such a system did not exist until after Sect. Kerry became the Secretary of State. Until that time email retention was supposed to be done by printing a copy and ensuring that it was available for archiving. That's exactly what Ms. Clinton did; she printed copies of the emails that were related to her duties as Secretary of State and turned them over.

Ah, but see, that's not what happened. She was ordered to turn over her work related emails, which she did do.

Actually no, it was the requirement. An electronic copy was not sufficient to meet the archiving requirements.

Do you have proof that was her intention? If not, stop making such claims.

Nope, she didn't do that. She told them, and this is the direct quote "If they can't [send it via secure fax], turn into nonpaper w no identifying heading and send nonsecure." Turn it into "nonpaper w no identifying header" doesn't mean copy and pasting it into a different system. It's rewriting the content in a way that is not classified and removing the State Department headers so it is not quotable as an official source. It has nothing to do with removing classification markers. To do that would be illegal.

The really interesting part of this is that the content probably wasn't classified anyway. Talking points rarely are, since the purpose it to give the information to the press.

Oh, and BTW, the information was sent by secure fax.

So when you wrote...

and

You are misstating the facts. I'm going to assume you didn't know better, so I won't accuse you of lying. But if you say the same thing again, you will be lying.

I'm not claiming that we don't have inspectors saying the email contained classified material; that'd be stupid. What I'm asking about are your claims of the actual content in those emails, like your repeated claims of satellite imagery.

Can you share those sources for people that have actually reviewed the classified material that there were, as you claim, classified satellite imagery of North Korea in the email? All I've seen is conjecture and anonymous sources.

There were no policies against having a private email server, and your claim of personal gain is unfounded, as is your claim that she cut out basic security procedures.

You've misquoted the data. The .78 is washing one hand only with water. The baseline, not washing, is 1.00.

Washing without soap decreases the spread of that particular illness by a third. That's quite effective. As I said, any soap will make it better, in the study I linked to using soap decreased it another third beyond washing without soap.

Nobody is suggesting that washing your hands after going to the bathroom sterilizes your hands. Nobody needs that, though. Washing your hands for 20 second gets rid of the majority of germs on your hands. There's experimental proof to show that.

I do it all the time. As the CDC suggests, I sing the tune "Happy Birthday" in my mind, usually twice, while doing it. I've taught my daughter to do the same.

I don't really care if people think I'm weird for washing my hands well. I rarely get sick, and it's because I wash my hands. That said, I've been doing it for years, and nobody, at least not so I've noticed, has looked at me funny.

I don't think anyone was suggesting that you can remove all pathogens. The comment you responded to said, "most pathogens". That's true. Hand washing for 20 seconds does remove most pathogens.

Do you really think the point of washing your hands after going to the bathroom is to make them sterile enough to operate with?

The CDC recommends 20 seconds of scrubbing for those of us not going into the operating room.

You've got a bit overboard. Washing your hands properly with or without soap does decrease the likelihood of spreading germs that make people sick, see The Effect of Handwashing at Recommended Times with Water Alone and With Soap on Child Diarrhea in Rural Bangladesh: An Observational Study

Washing your hands without soap at all is quite effective, assuming you do a reasonable job at it. See The Effect of Handwashing at Recommended Times with Water Alone and With Soap on Child Diarrhea in Rural Bangladesh: An Observational Study. Any soap will make the hand washing more effective. Anti-bacterial soap is no better than standard soap.