@pppucci:
–-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
