Why Hillary deleting 30,000 emails was not criminal
-
mhorndisk wanted an answer, I gave him one. He refuses to believe it. The subpoena that she allegedly violated was from a congressional committee investigating Benghazi. It asked for emails from her server related to that investigation. It did not ask for every blessed email on the server. If she had kept paper files her basement and they asked her to produce the relevant ones, she would not have to submit every file there. here is the subpoena:
http://benghazi.house.gov/sites/republicans.benghazi.house.gov/files/Kendall.Clinton%20Subpoena%20-%202015.03.04.pdf
(i haven't learned how to embed a pdf file or even if it is possible)
There is your answer. I know mhorndisk will not accept it. Nor will he read the subpoena for himself. He will rant and rave about Benghazi or Russia or the Clinton Foundation. The FBI said she did not commit a crime. What more do you want, the Spanish Inquisition?Again, it true that the at least some of the emails were deleted after receiving the subpoena, but Hillary and her staff swore that they were unrelated to the Benghazi investigation. Read about it on Politifact:
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2016/oct/09/donald-trump/donald-trump-says-hillary-clinton-deleted-33000-em/ -
You have GOT to be KIDDING ME!!! She SMASHED THEM UP WITH A HAMMER!!! :cheesy2: You're just too much man.
-
You have GOT to be KIDDING ME!!! She SMASHED THEM UP WITH A HAMMER!!! :cheesy2: You're just too much man.
The whole hammer-smashing thing is another false slogan. The Hammer smashing was a standard recommended procedure at the State Department for destroying old mobile devices. And so what? She turned over what the Congress asked for and endured days of hostile hearings on the Benghazi issue. The whole e-mail thing was blown out of proportion. It was not, as she has said recently, a "nothing burger," but neither was it a treasonous offense as her critics maintained. Either way, it is not relevant at all in today's political world.
-
–-I am not replying to my own post, I am copying and pasting Frederick's remarks on this subject which were posted in another thread, so I can respond to them.. Frederick wrote:
_"AGAIN.. you are twisting and spinning reality:
Here's REALITY for you:For the time period of January 1, 2011 through December 31, 2012
ANY and ALL documents in your posession, and/or sent from or received by the email address "[email protected]",
"[email protected]," or any other email address or communications device used by you or another on your behalf,
referring or relating to (Libya)Let me break this long winded statement down:
It orders Hillary to turn over all her documents emails from the years 2011 and 2012.
This is to also include communications made by her or on her behalf related to Libya.I will grant you that this is a bit confusing. This is typical of government speak.
You are interpreting this order as being restrictive in that they only wanted those e-mails that were related to Libya.
That is not what it says. It says it wants ALL of HER communications of 2011 and 2012.
It also wants the communications made on her behalf if they are related to Libya.It is absurd to interpret that as giving her the right to not only DELETE, but also make it impossible for anybody, including the FBI and CIA, from getting physical possession of her hard drives to retrieve that DELETED information by using "bleach bit" software. There is a world of difference between not turning something over and DELETING it so it can't be turned over.
She had no business deleting any communications off that server which she illegally had in her own home. This is one reason why it is illegal for the servers to be in private homes such as Hillary's basement. It's not only for security from hackers, but also to ensure that the private person can't go and delete things that don't belong to them. Imagine if Nixon just deleted or burned those "Watergate" tapes. That would put him in prison if he was not a President at the time. Nixon didn't even delete / eliminate the tapes. Perhaps he WOULD have if he could have done it without anybody finding out. In Hillary's case, she wasn't a president, and we DID find out.
Additionally, Hillary told several lies about the e-mails and devices, including that she only used ONE mobile communications device, when in fact she used something like 15 of them. (She destroyed them with a hammer which was to cover up what she was leaking. The information on them would have already been leaked.. so wouldn't it be nice for the US Government to KNOW what was leaked? Not possible since she took a hammer to them. Now only the hackers know what was leaked). She lied about the number of e-mails. She had a private computer firm without security clearance going over those communications.
Even if Congress had not subpoena's those communications, she STILL had no legal authority to delete them. As it turns out, there were many very damaging e-mails coming and going out of her e-mail accounts - including how they plotted to steal the nomination from Bernie Sanders, and pay people to disrupt Trump's rallies (those were obviously not part of the 2011-2012 subpoena, but she still had no right to DELETE them.. they probably would have been subpoenaed later.. you can't subpoena something that no longer exists.. )
Also, we later found out that COPIES of these deleted e-mails were floating around all over the place, including on the computers of pedo Anthony Weiner, husband of Huma Abedin (Hillary's closest advisor).I could go on, but clearly Hillary grossly violated the law, and she should never had been eligible to be a candidate while under investigation. This is why that corrupt former Attorney General Lorettta Shudbee Lynch, used the word "matter" instead of "investigation". "_
–---------
My reply. You misstate the scope of the subpoena. She was asked to turn over emails from 2010 and 2011 rregarding the events in Libya… So clearly she did not violate a congressional subpoena.
As to her obligation to preserve even un-related emails, it is true she had an obligation to preserve an correspondence relating to her duties as Secretary of State, but she was under no obligation to preserve those of a personal nature. So even if those did contain damaging political information, she did not legally have to preserve them. Even IF they contained evidence of criminal activities ( I am not saying they did) she still would be under no obligation to preserve them. The fourth amendment protects against unlawful search and seizure. She did not have to preserve them for some future possible investigation.
Lastly, she did not destroy all of her emails. She did turn over about 30,000. The ones that were deleted were examined by her legal team in good faith, and found to be unrelated to her cabinet duties. Destroying old mobile devices with a hammer was standard practice in the state department.
But as I asked mhorndisk, why the hell does that matter now? -
–-I am not replying to my own post, I am copying and pasting Frederick's remarks on this subject which were posted in another thread, so I can respond to them.. Frederick wrote:
_"AGAIN.. you are twisting and spinning reality:
Here's REALITY for you:For the time period of January 1, 2011 through December 31, 2012
ANY and ALL documents in your posession, and/or sent from or received by the email address "[email protected]",
"[email protected]," or any other email address or communications device used by you or another on your behalf,
referring or relating to (Libya)Let me break this long winded statement down:
It orders Hillary to turn over all her documents emails from the years 2011 and 2012.
This is to also include communications made by her or on her behalf related to Libya.I will grant you that this is a bit confusing. This is typical of government speak.
You are interpreting this order as being restrictive in that they only wanted those e-mails that were related to Libya.
That is not what it says. It says it wants ALL of HER communications of 2011 and 2012.
It also wants the communications made on her behalf if they are related to Libya.It is absurd to interpret that as giving her the right to not only DELETE, but also make it impossible for anybody, including the FBI and CIA, from getting physical possession of her hard drives to retrieve that DELETED information by using "bleach bit" software. There is a world of difference between not turning something over and DELETING it so it can't be turned over.
She had no business deleting any communications off that server which she illegally had in her own home. This is one reason why it is illegal for the servers to be in private homes such as Hillary's basement. It's not only for security from hackers, but also to ensure that the private person can't go and delete things that don't belong to them. Imagine if Nixon just deleted or burned those "Watergate" tapes. That would put him in prison if he was not a President at the time. Nixon didn't even delete / eliminate the tapes. Perhaps he WOULD have if he could have done it without anybody finding out. In Hillary's case, she wasn't a president, and we DID find out.
Additionally, Hillary told several lies about the e-mails and devices, including that she only used ONE mobile communications device, when in fact she used something like 15 of them. (She destroyed them with a hammer which was to cover up what she was leaking. The information on them would have already been leaked.. so wouldn't it be nice for the US Government to KNOW what was leaked? Not possible since she took a hammer to them. Now only the hackers know what was leaked). She lied about the number of e-mails. She had a private computer firm without security clearance going over those communications.
Even if Congress had not subpoena's those communications, she STILL had no legal authority to delete them. As it turns out, there were many very damaging e-mails coming and going out of her e-mail accounts - including how they plotted to steal the nomination from Bernie Sanders, and pay people to disrupt Trump's rallies (those were obviously not part of the 2011-2012 subpoena, but she still had no right to DELETE them.. they probably would have been subpoenaed later.. you can't subpoena something that no longer exists.. )
Also, we later found out that COPIES of these deleted e-mails were floating around all over the place, including on the computers of pedo Anthony Weiner, husband of Huma Abedin (Hillary's closest advisor).I could go on, but clearly Hillary grossly violated the law, and she should never had been eligible to be a candidate while under investigation. This is why that corrupt former Attorney General Lorettta Shudbee Lynch, used the word "matter" instead of "investigation". "_
–---------
\My reply. You misstate the scope of the subpoena. She was asked to turn over emails from 2010 and 2011 rregarding the events in Libya… So clearly she did not violate a congressional subpoena.
As to her obligation to preserve even un-related emails, it is true had an obligation to preserve an correspondence relating to her duties as Secretary of State, she was under no obligation to preserve those of a personal nature. So even if those did contain damaging political information, she did not legally ahve to preserve them. Even IF they contained evidence of criminal activities ( I am not saying they did) she still would be under no obligation to preserve them. The fourth amendment protects against unlawful search and seizure. She did not have to preserve them for some future possible investigation.
Lastly, she did not destroy all of her emails. She did turn over about 30,000. The ones that were deleted were examined by her legal team in good faith, and found to be unrelated to her cabinet duties. Destroying old mobile devices with a hammer was standard practice in the state department.
But as I asked mhorndisk, why the hell does that matter now?You are entirely WRONG. She was ordered to turn over ALL her communications of 2011 and 2012 AND the communications of others if they were LIBYA related.
Putting that argument aside.. there is no argument that DELETING and PERMANENTLY WIPING away evidence was a clear violation of the law. Even if congress never subpoenaed anything.. she was breaking the law by deleting those communications. And she was obstructing justice by wiping the computer of the data that could have been retrieved by the FBI or CIA if they got physical possession of her hard drives, which she had no business having in her own possession in her own house to begin with.
In all, there were hundreds of thousands of e-mails and other messages on that server, perhaps even millions of them. It would take several months if not years to analyze them all.. yet by magic.. Hillary managed to do it in just 2 days!Perhaps this is how she did it so fast….
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Be1f0qKxcYs
or this..
Youtube Video -
I am not a lawyer and I doubt you are, but that colon, together with the word regarding in the subpoena modifies the phrase that precedes it, so that it means "all emails from 2011 to 2012 regarding the Libya investigation. It certainly does not mean "all emails from 2011 to 2012, including those regarding the Libya investigation" because such a request would be unconstitutional.
How did she violate the law by permanently deleting the emails that were not work related? If she has a set of love letters to Bill in her office and decided to burn them, would that be a crime. And if deleting the emails was criminal what law did she break?
The FBI declined to prosecute. If there still was a case, believe me, Trump would be all over it. I do not buy for one minute his line that "she has suffered enough."
There were not hundreds of thousands or millions of emails on that server. There were 62,000. She had a private email server. She was not running her own ISP.
I will agree that using a personal server instead of a state.gov address was against State Department policy, but to call it illegal is a stretch. Again, show me the law. If it is true, the laws she violated should be readily found on the net. I looked. I couldn't find them.
The whole email thing was a big political mistake, but it was not criminal.
But more importantly, why are we talking about this? Are you guys still threatened by her? I don't see how.P.S. Forgot to add the reference: http://www.factcheck.org/2016/07/a-guide-to-clintons-emails/
-
Why hasn't Trump locked her up?
I guess he was just saying all that stuff to get gullible people to vote for him. It worked.
-
Why hasn't Trump locked her up?
I guess he was just saying all that stuff to get gullible people to vote for him. It worked.
He might still. He's being a nice guy right now. A moonbat would never let anybody off the hook for anything. Trump is being an extremely good sport.
-
Why hasn't Trump locked her up?
I guess he was just saying all that stuff to get gullible people to vote for him. It worked.
He might still. He's being a nice guy right now. A moonbat would never let anybody off the hook for anything. Trump is being an extremely good sport.
As Mae West used to say, "Goodness had nothing to do with it." It just is not politically advantageous to do so right now. I agree with you, Frederick that he may in the future, especially if he needs to shore up his base. There is such deep-seated hatred of her in some groups that goes back 30 years. Trump knows he can pump that well whenever he wants.
P.S. I am impressed with your cooler tone, and I thank you for that. But at the risk of asking too much, how hard would it be to call us liberals or leftists instead of "moonbats?" We all know of your disdain. You don't need to use a deprecative noun in every post.
