Richard Nixon Is Laughing His ASS Off

[Care4all]

Instead of ad hominems refute them, or run away, as usual!

Yes, I have been refuting the nonsense of the far right. Let's see real evidence. Ask Alexander Hamilton about that, Vigilante.

Now Jakeass, you want to start your stolen Valor shit, I can do that if you want all night! What evidence would you like?

Where's you Honorable Discharge, Stolen Valor Vigilante. You run away every time we go through this. We both served, I 12 years you 2 years. I have an Honorable characterizationof my service.

Now the point is you misattributed a quote to Alexander Hamilton, I caught you on it, and you can't admit it because of your false pride.

It is what it is.

My SS 214 says Honorable on it, but where & when did you serve and what was your combat injury? You REFUSE to say... Dtolen Valor is your problem Jakeass, not mine.... And Can you prove Alexander Hamilton Didn't say that quote... All I find is that he PROBABLY didn't, but nothing definite... and NOW get back to the topic, or continue to look like the diverter you are! Come on Manchurian Republican, let's hear from you, ON TOPIC!!!

Does say 'General Under Honorable Conditions' and why did you not use any of your VA and GI benefits? Something is not fishy year. My 12 years were characterized as Honorable. Yes, it was proven that AH did not say the quote; it appeared 120 years after his death. now apologize for your service and your misquotation. Or will take you to the woodshed again.

I believe, you have to be in for 4 years before the GI Bill swings in, but not certain?

 

[Dana7360]

1, WHO scrubbed the server and WHEN did they scrub it?
If it was done in the last month she IS going to prison.

It was her personal and private email account.





Guess what?

A person can do whatever they want with their personal and private property.

While you people may act all shocked you all didn't seem upset when george bush the second did the same thing.

Are you upset that jeb bush had a private email account and he wiped it clean?

How about romney, he had a private email account while governor and whiped it clean. He did more than that. He had publicly paid for laptops destroyed so that the information on them wouldn't get released to the public.

 

[BlindBoo]

I tell you who is really laughing his ass off, it's the guy who destroyed the CIA's torture tapes under President Bush.........

 

[Dana7360]

She won't go to prison regardless of what happens with the emails, because there was no laws she broke.....only flimsy Record Admin's guidelines that didn't even have any punishments written out.

You don't go to prison for breaking the workplace's rules, you get fired for it, and she already left.

If she cleaned that server, that means she had SOLE possession of government documents AFTER she left the post. It has ALREADY been shown she did NOT sign off on the document release as REQUIRED by law when she left. {felony}

If she scrubbed that server AFTER the START of the investigation she tampered with evidence. {felony} Trey Gowdy was NOT your typical "ambulance chaser". He was a felony prosecutor and a damn good one. {look it up}

It's over okay? Just flat over.

They weren't government documents as she used the email as a private email, so it was at her discretion as to what to delete and what to turn over. That's more an aspect of how behind the national government is with cyber-security.

Tampering with evidence is a really long shot since she did turn over everything she claims is relevant to the government affairs, and I still think the whole Benghazi issue is long dead at this point.

What's really awkward about all this is that Gowdy had hundreds of emails from and to Clinton with the @clintonemail.com address and he never thought to bring it up the entire time during the select committee. Talk about inept....that must be kinda embarrassing for him.

Her sole discretion?

That must be nice. How far up do you have to be before you get to decide what evidence is used in a case against you?

No wonder why prosecuting ANYONE in high offices seems impossible - people like you are just fine if those under scrutiny get to decide what is 'evidence' and what can be destroyed.

What makes the difference in the days of Nixon and now? The Republicans policed themselves and didn't fight prosecuting Nixon. They wanted to get to the bottom of Watergate and take anyone down that deserved it. Not like the Democrats covering for Hill and Bill. They think it;s just fine to hide evidence that may bring her highness down.

Here's the main and most important difference.

nixon recorded all those conversations on government owned equipment thus everything that was recorded was property of the government.

A private email account isn't public and not property of the government. It's the property of the person who owns that account.

Since that account was private property, Hillary can do anything her heart desires with her own private property. None of it's illegal and there's not one thing you or anyone can do about it.

Just keep whining and lying. I'm sure it will make you feel better.

 

[Dana7360]

Was it a court-order subpoena?

A former Secretary of State, as any executive officer, can ignore a congressional request.

Shes not the secretary of state now, and no, former SecState do not have the protection of the executive with regard to subpoena. She is just a private citizen now.

The only question is timing. Destruction of requested documents is a crime.

Those are your words, not mine. I said "request" and, yes, a congressional "subpoena" is not absolute either for a former executive officer.

Failure to obey a Congressional subpoena is a criminal offense, the same as failing to obey a court subpoena.

Tell that to karl rove.

The man was subpoenaed in the bush boy years.

rove never showed up or obeyed the subpoena. In fact he very blatantly snubbed his nose at that subpoena and went out of the country.

Nothing happened to him.

 

[Care4all]

Was it a court-order subpoena?

A former Secretary of State, as any executive officer, can ignore a congressional request.

Shes not the secretary of state now, and no, former SecState do not have the protection of the executive with regard to subpoena. She is just a private citizen now.

The only question is timing. Destruction of requested documents is a crime.

Those are your words, not mine. I said "request" and, yes, a congressional "subpoena" is not absolute either for a former executive officer.

Failure to obey a Congressional subpoena is a criminal offense, the same as failing to obey a court subpoena.

She complied with the subpoena, and turned over her Sate Department emails.

They did not have a subpoena for her personal email records.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Yes, I have been refuting the nonsense of the far right. Let's see real evidence. Ask Alexander Hamilton about that, Vigilante.

Now Jakeass, you want to start your stolen Valor shit, I can do that if you want all night! What evidence would you like?

Where's you Honorable Discharge, Stolen Valor Vigilante. You run away every time we go through this. We both served, I 12 years you 2 years. I have an Honorable characterizationof my service.

Now the point is you misattributed a quote to Alexander Hamilton, I caught you on it, and you can't admit it because of your false pride.

It is what it is.

My SS 214 says Honorable on it, but where & when did you serve and what was your combat injury? You REFUSE to say... Dtolen Valor is your problem Jakeass, not mine.... And Can you prove Alexander Hamilton Didn't say that quote... All I find is that he PROBABLY didn't, but nothing definite... and NOW get back to the topic, or continue to look like the diverter you are! Come on Manchurian Republican, let's hear from you, ON TOPIC!!!

Does it say 'General Under Honorable Conditions' and why did you not use any of your VA and GI benefits? Something is fishy here. My 12 years were characterized as Honorable. Yes, it was proven that AH did not say the quote; it appeared 120 years after his death. now apologize for your service and your misquotation. Or I will take you to the woodshed again.

I believe, you have to be in for 4 years before the GI Bill swings in, but not certain?

I do not know the rules today

In our day, it was a minimum of six months and an Honorable Discharge or General Under Honorable Conditions Discharge to get a range of VA and GI Bill benefits. If a solder received a GUHC discharge, he would receive a limited set of benefits. I served 12 years actively, my service characterization was Honorable: I received a disability pension, a 100% VA care provision, government loans for housing and business, and a GI bill. I used it all, did very well from all of it, and I am enjoying my retirement quite happily.

 

[Jackson]

She won't go to prison regardless of what happens with the emails, because there was no laws she broke.....only flimsy Record Admin's guidelines that didn't even have any punishments written out.

You don't go to prison for breaking the workplace's rules, you get fired for it, and she already left.

If she cleaned that server, that means she had SOLE possession of government documents AFTER she left the post. It has ALREADY been shown she did NOT sign off on the document release as REQUIRED by law when she left. {felony}

If she scrubbed that server AFTER the START of the investigation she tampered with evidence. {felony} Trey Gowdy was NOT your typical "ambulance chaser". He was a felony prosecutor and a damn good one. {look it up}

It's over okay? Just flat over.

They weren't government documents as she used the email as a private email, so it was at her discretion as to what to delete and what to turn over. That's more an aspect of how behind the national government is with cyber-security.

Tampering with evidence is a really long shot since she did turn over everything she claims is relevant to the government affairs, and I still think the whole Benghazi issue is long dead at this point.

What's really awkward about all this is that Gowdy had hundreds of emails from and to Clinton with the @clintonemail.com address and he never thought to bring it up the entire time during the select committee. Talk about inept....that must be kinda embarrassing for him.

Her sole discretion?

That must be nice. How far up do you have to be before you get to decide what evidence is used in a case against you?

No wonder why prosecuting ANYONE in high offices seems impossible - people like you are just fine if those under scrutiny get to decide what is 'evidence' and what can be destroyed.

What makes the difference in the days of Nixon and now? The Republicans policed themselves and didn't fight prosecuting Nixon. They wanted to get to the bottom of Watergate and take anyone down that deserved it. Not like the Democrats covering for Hill and Bill. They think it;s just fine to hide evidence that may bring her highness down.

Here's the main and most important difference.

nixon recorded all those conversations on government owned equipment thus everything that was recorded was property of the government.

A private email account isn't public and not property of the government. It's the property of the person who owns that account.

Since that account was private property, Hillary can do anything her heart desires with her own private property. None of it's illegal and there's not one thing you or anyone can do about it.

Just keep whining and lying. I'm sure it will make you feel better.

"A private email account isn't public and not property of the government. It's the property of the person who owns that account.

Since that account was private property, Hillary can do anything her heart desires with her own private property. None of it's illegal and there's not one thing you or anyone can do about it."

And that is what the Hill is banking on. The difference is, all those emails were supposed to be saved to a government server and archived. And since she didn't follow protocol, the emails have to be preserved asnd archived anyway regardless of the server. No, her little mischief shouldn't be rewarded, but that server turned over and if the server has been altered, she should explain why.

 

[Jackson]

Was it a court-order subpoena?

A former Secretary of State, as any executive officer, can ignore a congressional request.

Shes not the secretary of state now, and no, former SecState do not have the protection of the executive with regard to subpoena. She is just a private citizen now.

The only question is timing. Destruction of requested documents is a crime.

Those are your words, not mine. I said "request" and, yes, a congressional "subpoena" is not absolute either for a former executive officer.

Failure to obey a Congressional subpoena is a criminal offense, the same as failing to obey a court subpoena.

She complied with the subpoena, and turned over her Sate Department emails.

They did not have a subpoena for her personal email records.

Who verified the State Department emails were turned over? The potential perp? Well, isn't that cozy?

 

[Jackson]

Was it a court-order subpoena?

A former Secretary of State, as any executive officer, can ignore a congressional request.

Shes not the secretary of state now, and no, former SecState do not have the protection of the executive with regard to subpoena. She is just a private citizen now.

The only question is timing. Destruction of requested documents is a crime.

Those are your words, not mine. I said "request" and, yes, a congressional "subpoena" is not absolute either for a former executive officer.

Failure to obey a Congressional subpoena is a criminal offense, the same as failing to obey a court subpoena.

Tell that to karl rove.

The man was subpoenaed in the bush boy years.

rove never showed up or obeyed the subpoena. In fact he very blatantly snubbed his nose at that subpoena and went out of the country.

Nothing happened to him.

Jaworski subpoenaed Nixon tapes and he had to resign. We can go tit for tat but let's stay in the present, shall we?

 

[Darkwind]

Was it a court-order subpoena?

A former Secretary of State, as any executive officer, can ignore a congressional request.

Shes not the secretary of state now, and no, former SecState do not have the protection of the executive with regard to subpoena. She is just a private citizen now.

The only question is timing. Destruction of requested documents is a crime.

Those are your words, not mine. I said "request" and, yes, a congressional "subpoena" is not absolute either for a former executive officer.

Failure to obey a Congressional subpoena is a criminal offense, the same as failing to obey a court subpoena.

She complied with the subpoena, and turned over her Sate Department emails.

They did not have a subpoena for her personal email records.

They had a subpoena for her emails. I don't believe the subpoena specified either way. In any case, SHE is not the authority to determine which was private and which were public. That fell to an independent third party.

 

[Darkwind]

When you receive a subpoena for records, either from a State agency, A federal Agency, you are in violation of the subpoena if you destroy ANY documents, unless or until they are cleared by the subpoenaing agency. Otherwise, it is tampering and destruction of evidence. The deletion of electronic records is no different than the shredding of documents in the past.

People would shred documents to keep them out of the courts hands for only a few reasons. The chief among them is that the penalty for destroying a document was far less than the penalty for what was IN the documents.

And THAT is what is going to be used against the Clinton....that she destroyed the documents to keep from having to face a larger punishment.

 

[Jackson]

When you receive a subpoena for records, either from a State agency, A federal Agency, you are in violation of the subpoena if you destroy ANY documents, unless or until they are cleared by the subpoenaing agency. Otherwise, it is tampering and destruction of evidence. The deletion of electronic records is no different than the shredding of documents in the past.

People would shred documents to keep them out of the courts hands for only a few reasons. The chief among them is that the penalty for destroying a document was far less than the penalty for what was IN the documents.

And THAT is what is going to be used against the Clinton....that she destroyed the documents to keep from having to face a larger punishment.

I'm getting the popcorn ready.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Go to the courts then, guys.

 

[Care4all]

Was it a court-order subpoena?

A former Secretary of State, as any executive officer, can ignore a congressional request.

Shes not the secretary of state now, and no, former SecState do not have the protection of the executive with regard to subpoena. She is just a private citizen now.

The only question is timing. Destruction of requested documents is a crime.

Those are your words, not mine. I said "request" and, yes, a congressional "subpoena" is not absolute either for a former executive officer.

Failure to obey a Congressional subpoena is a criminal offense, the same as failing to obey a court subpoena.

She complied with the subpoena, and turned over her Sate Department emails.

They did not have a subpoena for her personal email records.

They had a subpoena for her emails. I don't believe the subpoena specified either way. In any case, SHE is not the authority to determine which was private and which were public. That fell to an independent third party.

Why are you saying that? Is that how the subpoena read?

And all other government officials that chose to use their own private servers, just went through and sent to the government, what was theirs, such as Colin Powel when he was Secretary of State and used his own private server for his Secretary of State job....Did they force him to send all of his personal emails as well or send in a person to go through his personal emails to make certain he did not leave any out?

This is just utter partisan
Dog and Pony show bull crud, and you know it.

 

[Care4all]

Other witnesses in the Benghazi hearings where their emails were subpoena, and they used their own server for gvt business, only had to sign an affidavit that they sent them all of their gvt emails.... why this added bull crud put on to Hillary?

 

[Dana7360]

Was it a court-order subpoena?

A former Secretary of State, as any executive officer, can ignore a congressional request.

Shes not the secretary of state now, and no, former SecState do not have the protection of the executive with regard to subpoena. She is just a private citizen now.

The only question is timing. Destruction of requested documents is a crime.

Those are your words, not mine. I said "request" and, yes, a congressional "subpoena" is not absolute either for a former executive officer.

Failure to obey a Congressional subpoena is a criminal offense, the same as failing to obey a court subpoena.

Tell that to karl rove.

The man was subpoenaed in the bush boy years.

rove never showed up or obeyed the subpoena. In fact he very blatantly snubbed his nose at that subpoena and went out of the country.

Nothing happened to him.

Jaworski subpoenaed Nixon tapes and he had to resign. We can go tit for tat but let's stay in the present, shall we?

The tapes, unlike Hillary's private email, were public property.

I guess you're having a problem distinguishing the difference between public and private ownership.

When someone privately owns something they can do anything they want with it within our laws.

Which is what Hillary did. She has the same rights of ownership of property as every other American.

I just have to ask, why don't you have the same outrage with romney or jeb bush who had private email accounts and wiped them clean? Why don't you have outrage with the romney for actually destroying government owned laptops before he left office so that all the info on those hard drives were destroyed?

I will be the first to say that real regulations and laws need to be established regarding emails and government equipment. However, the people who have the authority to do that aren't willing to do it because they don't want to regulate themselves or the consequences of violating those regulations. Congress had the power to regulate emails and government equipment all along. All the congress did was write some loose laws without any consequences.

 

[Jackson]

Shes not the secretary of state now, and no, former SecState do not have the protection of the executive with regard to subpoena. She is just a private citizen now.

The only question is timing. Destruction of requested documents is a crime.

Those are your words, not mine. I said "request" and, yes, a congressional "subpoena" is not absolute either for a former executive officer.

Failure to obey a Congressional subpoena is a criminal offense, the same as failing to obey a court subpoena.

She complied with the subpoena, and turned over her Sate Department emails.

They did not have a subpoena for her personal email records.

They had a subpoena for her emails. I don't believe the subpoena specified either way. In any case, SHE is not the authority to determine which was private and which were public. That fell to an independent third party.

Why are you saying that? Is that how the subpoena read?

And all other government officials that chose to use their own private servers, just went through and sent to the government, what was theirs, such as Colin Powel when he was Secretary of State and used his own private server for his Secretary of State job....Did they force him to send all of his personal emails as well or send in a person to go through his personal emails to make certain he did not leave any out?

This is just utter partisan
Dog and Pony show bull crud, and you know it.

I don't recall Powell cleaning his server after the subpoena was served. Could you provide a link?

 

[JakeStarkey]

Whether Powell did not or did so is immaterial.

 

[Jackson]

Shes not the secretary of state now, and no, former SecState do not have the protection of the executive with regard to subpoena. She is just a private citizen now.

The only question is timing. Destruction of requested documents is a crime.

Those are your words, not mine. I said "request" and, yes, a congressional "subpoena" is not absolute either for a former executive officer.

Failure to obey a Congressional subpoena is a criminal offense, the same as failing to obey a court subpoena.

Tell that to karl rove.

The man was subpoenaed in the bush boy years.

rove never showed up or obeyed the subpoena. In fact he very blatantly snubbed his nose at that subpoena and went out of the country.

Nothing happened to him.

Jaworski subpoenaed Nixon tapes and he had to resign. We can go tit for tat but let's stay in the present, shall we?

The tapes, unlike Hillary's private email, were public property.

I guess you're having a problem distinguishing the difference between public and private ownership.

When someone privately owns something they can do anything they want with it within our laws.

Which is what Hillary did. She has the same rights of ownership of property as every other American.

See post #108