This is hilarious, it was quite obvious that you only read the first paragraph article you cited... and now you didn't even read the first paragraph of what I last cited, allow me to demonstrate. You claim:

State may have them. Nobody knows except the State Department.

Except that's not what the State Department has said, to quote the last article I cited (and the first paragraph no less):

The State Department said Thursday that it could not locate “all or part” of 15 e-mails provided last week to the House Select Committee on Benghazi by Sidney Blumenthal from his exchanges with then-Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton.

Still not convinced? Why not consult a whole number of articles from various sources which report the same thing?

http://news.yahoo.com/state-de...
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/15...
http://www.nbcnews.com/politic...
http://www.cnn.com/2015/06/25/...
http://www.cnbc.com/2015/06/26...
http://www.foxnews.com/politic...
http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/sta...
http://timesofindia.indiatimes...

Noticing a trend yet?

Thus, your claim that we know she didn't turn over all of the emails is false. The State Department might have them, they might not.

So you are calling the professionals at the State Department and national archives incompetent because they cannot adequately locate these documents they may or may not have? Riiight. Occam's Razor would seem to apply.

You're misunderstanding the quote. According to them the information should have been deemed confidential.

On the contrary, I understand it quite well (as unlike you I've spent some time reading on this subject. Failing to set the 'classified' flag on an email doesn't change whether it is actually classified or not, it simply flags it for filtering & handling... not unlike putting "ATTORNEY CLIENT PRIVILEGED" in a subject line of an email. It's the content that matters, not the subject of flags.

It wasn't, though. That means there is no proof that she sent material that was, at the time it was sent, deemed classified.

Again... that's not what the IGs (two of them) have said. Though even your use of the term 'proof' is laughable. The intelligence agencies do not deal in proof the way the rest of us do, but in terms of probability. And the IGs have determined it is very probable that classified information that Hillary had access to is not in the control of the government due to her. That's the first step to opening a criminal investigation which will hopefully lead to a trial and proof that even you would accept.

Say hi to President Sanders for me.

Even if the Blumenthal emails meet the subpoena requirements, we don't know if the State Department has them or not.

You are forgetting that it wasn't the State Department that turned over the Blumenthal emails... it was Blumenthal.

How do we know this? The State Department said so!

So much for turning over all documents...

I think you only read the opening paragraph, which like any story about someone accused of a crime involves them pleading their innocence... however the article gets far worse the more it goes on for Hillary:

In a joint statement, the two inspectors general who made the referral said that it was "a security referral made for counterintelligence purposes." But, they added, they found that a sample of 40 of Clinton's emails from Clinton's server contained four with classified information that should "never have been transmitted via an unclassified personal system."

Clinton said in March that "I did not email any classified material to anyone on my email. There is no classified material."

Mishandling of classified information is a rather serious crime... just act David Petraeus.

Um:

In a letter to members of Congress on Thursday, the Inspector General of the Intelligence Community concluded that Mrs. Clinton’s email contains material from the intelligence community that should have been considered “secret” at the time it was sent, the second-highest level of classification. A copy of the letter to Congress was provided to The Wall Street Journal by a spokeswoman for the Inspector General.

The four emails in question “were classified when they were sent and are classified now,” said Andrea Williams, a spokeswoman for the inspector general. The inspector general reviewed just a small sample totaling about 40 emails in Mrs. Clinton’s inbox—meaning that many more in the trove of more than 30,000 may contain potentially secret or top-secret information.

DID YOU READ?
RETROACTIVELY CLASSIFIED!
means she committed no crime at all.

Actually no... it means that some emails were retroactively classified, others have been determined to have been classified at the time of sending:

In a letter to members of Congress on Thursday, the Inspector General of the Intelligence Community concluded that Mrs. Clinton’s email contains material from the intelligence community that should have been considered “secret” at the time it was sent, the second-highest level of classification. A copy of the letter to Congress was provided to The Wall Street Journal by a spokeswoman for the Inspector General.

The four emails in question “were classified when they were sent and are classified now,” said Andrea Williams, a spokeswoman for the inspector general. The inspector general reviewed just a small sample totaling about 40 emails in Mrs. Clinton’s inbox—meaning that many more in the trove of more than 30,000 may contain potentially secret or top-secret information.

Do try to keep up.

Another desperate attempt to stop the inevitable.

Yes, all hail President Sanders!

She claims that she deleted only e-mails of a personal nature and handed over all of the "requested" emails. It's your word against hers.

Well, that and the word (or actions) of Sidney Blumenthal who turned over work emails which she didn't. Oops!

The information in question was classified at a later date. It was not classified at the time it was transmitted.

Your information is out of date, from http://www.wsj.com/articles/in...

In a letter to members of Congress on Thursday, the Inspector General of the Intelligence Community concluded that Mrs. Clinton’s email contains material from the intelligence community that should have been considered “secret” at the time it was sent, the second-highest level of classification. A copy of the letter to Congress was provided to The Wall Street Journal by a spokeswoman for the Inspector General.

The four emails in question “were classified when they were sent and are classified now,” said Andrea Williams, a spokeswoman for the inspector general. The inspector general reviewed just a small sample totaling about 40 emails in Mrs. Clinton’s inbox—meaning that many more in the trove of more than 30,000 may contain potentially secret or top-secret information.

I'm betting 'office' does not include the office of President

Why not? The role (or office) of President is simply the head of one of the three co-equal branches.

Oops is "oh no, my coffee spilled on the documents and ruined them... see? I kept them around just so I could show the extent" and by some miracle, that was the only copy.

Oops is not "oh no, my finger pressed the delete key for a few minutes... and no you cannot look at my server"

The best way for the Justice Department to stay off her back is for them to do what they've been doing for a while, ignore cases or investigations they find politically inconvenient.

Your information is out of date: http://www.wsj.com/articles/in...

In a letter to members of Congress on Thursday, the Inspector General of the Intelligence Community concluded that Mrs. Clinton’s email contains material from the intelligence community that should have been considered “secret” at the time it was sent, the second-highest level of classification. A copy of the letter to Congress was provided to The Wall Street Journal by a spokeswoman for the Inspector General.

The four emails in question “were classified when they were sent and are classified now,” said Andrea Williams, a spokeswoman for the inspector general. The inspector general reviewed just a small sample totaling about 40 emails in Mrs. Clinton’s inbox—meaning that many more in the trove of more than 30,000 may contain potentially secret or top-secret information.

And in a just world she will be convicted under USC Title 18, Part 1 Chapter 101, Section 2071, specifically paragraph b which says:

(b) Whoever, having the custody of any such record, proceeding, map, book, document, paper, or other thing, willfully and unlawfully conceals, removes, mutilates, obliterates, falsifies, or destroys the same, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years, or both; and shall forfeit his office and be disqualified from holding any office under the United States. As used in this subsection, the term “office” does not include the office held by any person as a retired officer of the Armed Forces of the United States.

Correct, but there are other prohibitions against holding such an office depending on the crime. Most people have forgotten about USC Title 18, Part 1 Chapter 101, Section 2071, specifically paragraph b which says:

(b) Whoever, having the custody of any such record, proceeding, map, book, document, paper, or other thing, willfully and unlawfully conceals, removes, mutilates, obliterates, falsifies, or destroys the same, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years, or both; and shall forfeit his office and be disqualified from holding any office under the United States. As used in this subsection, the term “office” does not include the office held by any person as a retired officer of the Armed Forces of the United States.

In theory, Hillary has already committed an act which if convicted for would disqualify her for any future public office... now actually prosecuting her for that is a separate and rather unlikely matter.

So what steps are you taking from keeping Apple, Google, the NSA or some other large org from knowing every aspect of your life?

I would think there are degrees of leak, some might involve the FBI... others like this case would seem to be a case of "things went public earlier than we wanted but are not going to involve law enforcement"

How old are you? 12? 13? You clearly have a rather limited memory of history with comments like:

What could Microsoft's shitty "late to the game" voice recognition add over the existing solutions?

Or should we forget that Android is actually (still) the newcomer to the modern world of smartphones? I seem to recall Blackberry, iOS and Windows Mobile/Phone/Mobile existing well before Android... clearly in your world Android has nothing to offer over the existing solutions!

Whatever ideas from another platform could ever influence ones own platform of choice, purity above all else must be enforced eh?>

It's called wrongful termination and the civil lawsuit consequences

And if his employment was 'at-will'? If so then he has just as big of a leg to stand on as if he were fired because wore a green shirt to work on a Tuesday... none.

So long as you are not dismissed in violation of an employment agreement (which are usually worded in favor of the employer), in violation of law, or you can make a compelling case that you are a member of a protected class & that was actually the reason... you aren't going to win such a battle.

Does the place you work have two or more completely separate networks with no access between the inside & outside ones, requiring you two have two PCs on your desk, one for searching Google for how an API works or posting to /., and another you do your sensitive work work on? Probably not.

After 9/11 there was talk about setting up federal systems this way... clearly that still hasn't happened as once you breach a single PC inside of the corporate network, even if that PC doesn't have access to your target data, it and it's users permissions can be used to climb the ladder to find someone who does have data and use them.