Richard Nixon Is Laughing His ASS Off

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?
Her server was not subpoenaed, her personal emails were not subpoenaed, she broke no law, she turned over her records.... there is no law that says she can not wipe her own server of her own personal emails.

they have to take her word for it, have her sign an affidavit for such, or they can check with the people she works with to compare if she turned all of them over, and if she didn't, they will know, and can move forward from there....
 
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.
She scrubbed the server so.
1, There is NO proof she turned over ALL the emails.
2, There is NO proof the COPIES she turned over are real.
She destroyed what would be the ORIGINAL evidence AND supplied SUPPOSED copies, ILLEGAL evidence tampering.
 
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.
She scrubbed the server so.
1, There is NO proof she turned over ALL the emails.
2, There is NO proof the COPIES she turned over are real.
She destroyed what would be the ORIGINAL evidence AND supplied SUPPOSED copies, ILLEGAL evidence tampering.
she didn't send emails and have conversations with herself Dark Fury...any emails with the State Department, there is a copy on the other State dept employee's gvt server... it could be checked to see if she turned all of them over if this is what you wanted to do...

What is it that you are searching for and expected to find in her State Department emails?
 
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?
When Hillary left she never signed. And Powell NEver used his server for personal AND turned over the complete server.
 
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.
She scrubbed the server so.
1, There is NO proof she turned over ALL the emails.
2, There is NO proof the COPIES she turned over are real.
She destroyed what would be the ORIGINAL evidence AND supplied SUPPOSED copies, ILLEGAL evidence tampering.
she didn't send emails and have conversations with herself Dark Fury...any emails with the State Department, there is a copy on the other State dept employee's gvt server... it could be checked to see if she turned all of them over if this is what you wanted to do...

What is it that you are searching for and expected to find in her State Department emails?
It has already been sworn to she had FOUR state dept. employees working on a weekend late at night going thru the copies.

That is ALSO evidence tampering. Her John Dean could be weeks if not days away.
 
UeMo6Gw.jpg
 
No she isn't.

No one really cares anymore. that is the problem. Americans accept that their politicians are outright criminals and they still elect them as long as they are playing for their 'team.'

Then they bitch that politicians do not represent them.

If you vote, you have no right to complain.

So long as Presidential contests boil down to just 2 people, 1 from each party, it's always going to be the choice between dumb and dumber or giant douche and a turd sandwich. If you participate in this absurdity anyway YOU'RE the problem.
What an idiotic statement.
If you do not vote then you have no right whatsoever to complain as you are doing nothing to address the problem.

If you DO NOT vote then you are the problem. If you vote - you just might be part of the solution. Maybe - it depends on whether or not you actually vote for the best candidate rather than the two 'opposing' parties.
The parties do not care if you do not vote. All that matters is the PERCENTAGE they garner. I assure you that they would be happy gaining 60% of the vote even if less than 1% actually voted. It still means victory.
 
Cant wait for Russian, Iranian or Chicom hackers to post Hildabeasts emails.
 
Such screaming without much sense.

2014, unlike 2010, was a victory for mainstream Republicanism.

If we want a GOP president in 2016, the mainstream must muzzle the extreme far right reactionaries, or isolate them as "wackos not representative of the GOP."

You can't talk sense to that dumbass.
 
No she isn't.

No one really cares anymore. that is the problem. Americans accept that their politicians are outright criminals and they still elect them as long as they are playing for their 'team.'

Then they bitch that politicians do not represent them.

What was done that was illegal by the Secretary of State, be specific please.

Obstruction of justice - not providing emails to investigators
destruction of government property - the content of those emails are government property same as content
of Nixon's tapes.
There are others but these are so flagrant a blind man could see them.
 

New Topics

Forum List

Back
Top