<html xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:w="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:m="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/2004/12/omml" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40"><head><meta http-equiv=Content-Type content="text/html; charset=us-ascii"><meta name=Generator content="Microsoft Word 15 (filtered medium)"><style><!--
/* Font Definitions */
@font-face
{font-family:"Cambria Math";
panose-1:2 4 5 3 5 4 6 3 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Calibri;
panose-1:2 15 5 2 2 2 4 3 2 4;}
/* Style Definitions */
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
{margin:0in;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:11.0pt;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;}
a:link, span.MsoHyperlink
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:#0563C1;
text-decoration:underline;}
a:visited, span.MsoHyperlinkFollowed
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:#954F72;
text-decoration:underline;}
p.MsoPlainText, li.MsoPlainText, div.MsoPlainText
{mso-style-priority:99;
mso-style-link:"Plain Text Char";
margin:0in;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:11.0pt;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;}
span.PlainTextChar
{mso-style-name:"Plain Text Char";
mso-style-priority:99;
mso-style-link:"Plain Text";
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;}
.MsoChpDefault
{mso-style-type:export-only;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;}
@page WordSection1
{size:8.5in 11.0in;
margin:1.0in 1.0in 1.0in 1.0in;}
div.WordSection1
{page:WordSection1;}
--></style><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapedefaults v:ext="edit" spidmax="1026" />
</xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapelayout v:ext="edit">
<o:idmap v:ext="edit" data="1" />
</o:shapelayout></xml><![endif]--></head><body lang=EN-US link="#0563C1" vlink="#954F72"><div class=WordSection1><p class=MsoPlainText><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoPlainText><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoPlainText><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoPlainText>>... any scheme we could come up with still requires the kinds of password discipline that we now think Mrs. Clinton flatly refused to perform (details not available on request (the way they do passwords make that process a paaaaainnnn in the aaassssss (but it also explains why Mrs. Clinton never activated her .gov account (and another insight your question gave me: Mrs. Clinton didn't have a secure account, never had one, so she was not reminded every day, every single time she accessed a message that she could end up roommates with Mr. Sterling if she mishandled the info on that server (but her staff did (which brings up a whole sticky mess of questions in itself (such as the obvious: how did that material get across the gap?)))))))) spike<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoPlainText><span style='color:black'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoPlainText><span style='font-size:14.0pt;color:black'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoPlainText><span style='font-size:14.0pt;color:black'>OK so, upon further pondering, I have some ideas that should have occurred to me a long time ago, and some new weirdness, in light of today's developments, CoS Mills walking out of an FBI questioning session.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoPlainText><span style='font-size:14.0pt;color:black'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoPlainText><span style='font-size:14.0pt;color:black'>The secure server user interface isn't merely user-unfriendly, it is downright user hostile, for a good reason. They make the user repeatedly self-identify and present passwords, acknowledge that mishandling of the information thereon is a felony and all that. You can use your imagination and scarcely get there, but they built it that way so no one could accidentally get in trouble, and if someone got in trouble, they couldn't claim it was an accident.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoPlainText><span style='font-size:14.0pt;color:black'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoPlainText><span style='font-size:14.0pt;color:black'>So now I am imagining Mrs. Clinton who was never a computer user, taking this course on how to access this user-hostile secure server, and imagining her just saying no, she would not do this (and perhaps that she cannot do it (a story I would believe.)) There are no end-runs available; she requested it, the State Department told her no, they could not do it.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoPlainText><span style='font-size:14.0pt;color:black'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoPlainText><span style='font-size:14.0pt;color:black'>So... she arranged end-runs on her own, such as the private server. This resulted in a really weird situation: a SecState who had no legal channel for electronic communications. <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoPlainText><span style='font-size:14.0pt;color:black'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoPlainText><span style='font-size:14.0pt;color:black'>Now the weirdness: the secure servers have all these repeated acknowledgements that mishandling is a felony, etc, but since she never activated the account, she never checked off those boxes. Soooo... we could have a situation where the FBI finds that Mrs. Clinton herself never did acknowledge that bit about mishandling information, so no charges available on that. Then she could hold a dubious but vaguely feasible legalese argument that she did not recognize the information as classified, since her aids had not marked it as such. If that happens, we could see Jake Sullivan, Huma Abedin, Jennifer Palmieri, Jim Margolis, Nick Merrill, Marlon Marshall and Cheryl Mills go to prison, while Mrs. Clinton goes free to be elected. Then as soon as she is legally enabled, she pardons them out of prison. <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoPlainText><span style='font-size:14.0pt;color:black'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoPlainText><span style='font-size:14.0pt;color:black'>She would be in for some difficulty in defending herself against the charge that she ordered others to commit a felony, but she is already there anyway and might beat that charge. We already know that happened, and no charges have even been filed. Apparently that has become legal now. So, no recommendation by the FBI to indict Clinton, her entire staff goes to prison, I lose ten bucks to John Clark, she wins the election, fishes them out of the tank.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoPlainText><span style='font-size:14.0pt;color:black'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoPlainText><span style='font-size:14.0pt;color:black'>Then she realizes she can now order senators murdered, and pardon whoever did it, then declare the deceased enemies of the state. Then the surviving senators can be told they can run along home now, their services are no longer needed.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoPlainText><span style='font-size:14.0pt;color:black'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoPlainText><span style='font-size:14.0pt;color:black'>Where is the flaw in this reasoning please?<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoPlainText><span style='font-size:14.0pt;color:black'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoPlainText><span style='font-size:14.0pt;color:black'>spike<o:p></o:p></span></p></div></body></html>