Special Counsel Jack Smith has withdrawn his case

[struth]

The lie isn’t that the servers were wiped.

The lie is that you said Clinton wiped the servers.

The FBI determined it was someone else.

Oh, does it make you feel better, that she simply had them wiped and didn't physically down load the bleachbit herself or pick the hammer up herself?

Whatever makes you feel better

 

[Marener]

Oh, does it make you feel better, that she simply had them wiped and didn't physically down load the bleachbit herself or pick the hammer up herself?

Whatever makes you feel better

Thanks for admitting you lied.

Now, the next step. You can’t accuse her of having them wiped without providing evidence.

So let’s see the evidence that she did so.

 

[struth]

Thanks for admitting you lied.

Now, the next step. You can’t accuse her of having them wiped without providing evidence.

So let’s see the evidence that she did so.

when did I lie?

I guess now you are gonna tell us Hitler didn't really kill Jews...since he didn't actually lead them in gas chambers....

Your lies and propaganda have been debunked, and hypocrisy exposed.

 

[Marener]

when did I lie?

I guess now you are gonna tell us Hitler didn't really kill Jews...since he didn't actually lead them in gas chambers....

Your lies and propaganda have been debunked, and hypocrisy exposed.

I already told you. Two lies. You already admitted she didn’t wipe the servers. You continue to ignore your lie about the phones being destroyed while she was under investigation (she wasn’t under investigation and destroying phones is not unusual for devices that are end of life and not illegal).

Now where’s the evidence she had the servers wiped?

 

[postman]

As in this case, WP Is generally put on records to say that my position is that I'm right and you're wrong despite me withdrawing the case. It just means if the documents are used at a later date and if you didn't put WP on, it makes it difficult for you to prove you were right. Know what I mean?

I have no idea what you mean.

A judge may dismiss a case without prejudice in order to allow for errors in the case presented to be addressed before it is brought back to court. A judge will dismiss a case with prejudice if he or she finds reason why the case should not move forward and should be permanently closed.

 

[postman]

that is what bleachbit does.

Andrew Ziem, the creator of BleachBit, pointed to a recent CNN report about his software in which a computer security expert had speculated that Clinton’s team would have selected a more expensive, more sophisticated service if it truly sought to conceal records.

Your own citation is working against your argument.

 

[postman]

Oh, does it make you feel better, that she simply had them wiped and didn't physically down load the bleachbit herself or pick the hammer up herself?

Whatever makes you feel better

While an employer is civilly responsible for the actions of their employees, the same does not attach in a criminal case, unless they were acting under the instructions of the employer.

And in this case, the employee already admitted they were acting without instruction or orders from Clinton.

 

[struth]

Your own citation is working against your argument.

hahah you dembots crack me up...you see something you like and you stop reading....

the next line: “While there may be some merit to that, there is also an argument to be made for hoping that this doesn’t leave a money trail,” Ziem told the Washington Examiner.

 

[struth]

While an employer is civilly responsible for the actions of their employees, the same does not attach in a criminal case, unless they were acting under the instructions of the employer.

And in this case, the employee already admitted they were acting without instruction or orders from Clinton.

Oh the employee should and would be crmiinally responsible too....the acts were clearly done in furtherance of the conspiracy of Clinton to violate the espinage act. She and her entire team should of been charged. I don't disagree.

 

[postman]

hahah you dembots crack me up...you see something you like and you stop reading....

the next line: “While there may be some merit to that, there is also an argument to be made for hoping that this doesn’t leave a money trail,” Ziem told the Washington Examiner.

Isn't there MAY be SOME merit, rather clutching at straws.

Remember, guilt has to be established beyond a reasonable doubt, and words like MAY BE, and SOME are far below proving any guilt.

 

[Marener]

Oh the employee should and would be crmiinally responsible too....the acts were clearly done in furtherance of the conspiracy of Clinton to violate the espinage act. She and her entire team should have been charged. I don't disagree.

The employee was potentially culpable but as given immunity by the FBI to get their testimony. The employee, fully immunized, told the FBI that Clinton had not ordered him to illegally delete the server.

So there goes your criminal case. There’s no evidence to prosecute.

 

[Frankenstein]

Again, is there any evidence that Clinton ordered anyone to use bleachbit on the server?

I’ll cut to the chase.

The answer is no. The FBI interviewed the person who did it and he said she did not.

So case closed. No evidence to prosecute Clinton for this crime.

"The FBI interviewed the person who did it and he said she did not.
Do you understand how absolutely ignorant that statement is?"
The truth is

Two IT officials take Fifth on Clinton emails

Refusing to cooperate with Republicans pressing an election year investigation of Hillary Clinton’s email server from her time as Secretary of State, two employees of a Colorado tech company took the…

www.statesman.com

To be fair i would also choose the fifth of being suicided by the Clinton crime family

 

[Marener]

The FBI interviewed the person who did it and he said she did not. Do you understand how absolutely ignorant that statement is?

Im embarrassed by the bad grammar and lack of clarity, so I’ll rewrite it.

The technician who actually wiped the server was interviewed by the FBI.

This technician stated that no one had instructed him to wipe the server after the subpoena was issued.

There was no other evidence, such as text messages, emails or witnesses, to show otherwise.

Case closed.

 

[postman]

So there goes your criminal case. There’s no evidence to prosecute.

They're talking about violating a law with a 5 year statute of limitations.
About actions that happened over 8 years ago.

 

[Frankenstein]

Im embarrassed by the bad grammar and lack of clarity, so I’ll rewrite it.

The technician who actually wiped the server was interviewed by the FBI.

This technician stated that no one had instructed him to wipe the server after the subpoena was issued.

There was no other evidence, such as text messages, emails or witnesses, to show otherwise.

Case closed.

Re read my statement, they chose the fifth

 

[Marener]

Re read my statement, they chose the fifth

He was given immunity in exchange for testimony.

So you’re not accurate.

 

[postman]

To be fair i would also choose the fifth of being suicided by the Clinton crime family

You can only take the fifth against SELF incrimination.
It doesn't work to protect a third party.

 

[Frankenstein]

He was given immunity in exchange for testimony.

So you’re not accurate.

You are inaccurate
Refusing to cooperate with Republicans pressing an election year investigation of Hillary Clinton’s email server from her time as Secretary of State, two employees of a Colorado tech company took the Fifth Amendment at a hearing on the matter Tuesday, as another former Clinton aide ignored a subpoena and did not show up at the politically charged House hearing.

“Who told you to delete the emails?” Rep. Jason Chaffetz (R-UT), the Chairman of the House Oversight Committee asked Paul Combetta of Platte River Networks.

“On the advice of counsel, I respectfully decline to answer, and assert my Fifth Amendment privilege,” said Combetta, who was reportedly given immunity by the Department of Justice, during its controversial investigation of Clinton and her emails.
Still took the fifth

 

[postman]

He was given immunity in exchange for testimony.

So you’re not accurate.

It depends on the order of things.
They could have plead the 5th,
Then be granted immunity.
Then they testified that Clinton didn't have anything to do with it.

Since they acted alone, they properly plead the 5th, because their testimony was self incriminating.

 

[Marener]

You can only take the fifth against SELF incrimination.
It doesn't work to protect a third party.

It

You are inaccurate
Refusing to cooperate with Republicans pressing an election year investigation of Hillary Clinton’s email server from her time as Secretary of State, two employees of a Colorado tech company took the Fifth Amendment at a hearing on the matter Tuesday, as another former Clinton aide ignored a subpoena and did not show up at the politically charged House hearing.

“Who told you to delete the emails?” Rep. Jason Chaffetz (R-UT), the Chairman of the House Oversight Committee asked Paul Combetta of Platte River Networks.

“On the advice of counsel, I respectfully decline to answer, and assert my Fifth Amendment privilege,” said Combetta, who was reportedly given immunity by the Department of Justice, during its controversial investigation of Clinton and her emails.
Still took the fifth

I was very clear that he was interviewed by the FBI.

You’re referencing congressional testimony. I don’t give a shit about Congressional testimony because we are discussing the criminal investigation.

You are confused.