The law forbidding Hillary from deleting emails, bans her from holding ANY office if she violates it

[Skylar]

Yeah good luck with that.

TRANSLATION: Laws are for the little people, not for us. We Democrats will get away with it anyway.

Personal records aren't what is being discussed. Per your rather expansive definition of 'records', if any public official were to jot down a shopping list at home, its a 'record is possession of a public official'. And throwing their shopping list would be a punishable offense.

As Old School said, 'good luck with that'.

Actually, the definition of records isn't like that at all.

That's exactly my point. Per the OP's definition of 'records', any note, email, entry in her blackberry, or post it was a 'record'. Regardless of where it was made, or for what purpose. And since the OP's sole standard is 'in possession of a public official', a post-it with a shopping list made at home would quality.

The definition of 'record' being used by the OP is too broad. And it seems we agree.

It's very simple. All her correspondence for the State Department were supposed to happen on the official server. Hillary in stead used her own, giving her direct control over what should have been government record from the moment it was sent, then decided on her own which correspondences were revelant and deleted the rest.

All of that is true, though the official server idea is a bit more nebulous. Hillary used the exact same set up as Colin Powell, who did essentially the same thing. And not a peep from house or senate republicans. So its clearly not the use of a private server that causes the issue.

And the law requires that she turn over State Department communications. Which according to her, she did. If there's evidence that she didn't, present it. But if insinuations are all you have, you're not going to make much headway.

All of this while her foundation is taking donations from foreign entities, and we're supposed to take her word that using her own server had nothing to do with the apparent conflict of interest, AND take her word for the evidence -she- coughed up being all the relevant evidence? Since when do we trust suspects to dictate the scope and direction of their own investigations?

What conflict of interest? See, here's the rub; there's no evidence of special accommodation for, well, anyone. That's why these insinuations have had such a hard time sticking: there is no evidence of special treatment. Regardless of donations.

If some CEO had pulled some, "I gave you all the relevant evidence and destroyed the rest of what you wanted to look at because it didn't relate to the case" type shit, every Democrat from here to that CEOS pocket would be calling bullshit, and rightly so. But when it's one of our exalted progressive leaders, their word is basically gospel. Hillary says none of it was relevant and people actually claim that this -proves- her innocence.

The obvious problem with your analysis is that she doesn't have to 'prove her innocence'. She is innocent until it can be proven otherwise. And there's no evidence of a conflict of interest, special treatment, or destroyed records.

There's insinuations up the ass. But no actual evidence.

Though in fairness, if this had been a CEO, you're probably right. Lots and lots of folks would call bullshit.

 

[HUGGY]

Hillary's attorney, David Kendall, is quoted here about the server Hillary had used to store and process all her emails, saying: "no emails ... reside on the server or on any backup systems associated with the server."

In other words, the server has been wiped clean, with all emails that were on it, permanently deleted.

That's an interesting statement, coming from a lawyer.

Hillary has said that she decided for us, which emails she would allow us to see. She printed those out on paper, and then erased all the emails she thought we should not see. Her excuse was that she had decided they were not "work related". Now her lawyer says she erased ALL the emails on the server, apparently after preserving non-machine-searchable copies of some of them on paper.

Have a look at US Code, Title 18, Part 1, Chapter 101, Section 2071. It's a Federal law governing such things.

18 U.S. Code § 2071 - Concealment, removal, or mutilation generally

(a) Whoever willfully and unlawfully conceals, removes, mutilates, obliterates, or destroys, or attempts to do so, or, with intent to do so takes and carries away any record, proceeding, map, book, paper, document, or other thing, filed or deposited with any clerk or officer of any court of the United States, or in any public office, or with any judicial or public officer of the United States, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years, or both.

(b) Whoever, having the custody of any such record, proceeding, map, book, document, paper, or other thing, willfully and unlawfully conceals, removes, mutilates, obliterates, falsifies, or destroys the same, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years, or both; and shall forfeit his office and be disqualified from holding any office under the United States.

Note that this applies to "any record" held by a public official, not just the ones the person decides it's OK for us to see, or wants to withhold because an email is "personal".

In other words, with her legal representative stating that she destroyed the records she possessed and had decided not to allow us to see, she is now disqualified from holding any office. Including President. Barred by Federal law.

From her lawyer's mouth.

The big question: Will she obey this law???

------------------------------------------------------

Gowdy Clinton wiped email server clean deleted all emails - Yahoo News

Clinton wiped email server clean, deleted all emails

Associated Press
By MATTHEW DALY
45 minutes ago

WASHINGTON (AP) — Hillary Rodham Clinton wiped her email server "clean," permanently deleting all emails from it, the Republican chairman of a House committee investigating the 2012 Benghazi attacks said Friday.

Rep. Trey Gowdy, R-S.C., said the former secretary of state has failed to produce a single new document in recent weeks and has refused to relinquish her server to a third party for an independent review, as Gowdy has requested.

Clinton's attorney, David Kendall, said Gowdy was looking in the wrong place.

In a six-page letter released late Friday, Kendall said Clinton had turned over to the State Department all work-related emails sent or received during her tenure as secretary of state from 2009 to 2013.

"The Department of State is therefore in possession of all Secretary Clinton's work-related emails from the (personal email) account," Kendall wrote.

Kendall also said it would be pointless for Clinton to turn over her server, even if legally authorized, since "no emails ... reside on the server or on any backup systems associated with the server."

You are an idiot. Private e-mails are not public records.

Are you saying Hillary was using government assets to conduct personal business?

It was her own personal account. If it was a government asset she would not have had the authority to dump the server.

 

[RKMBrown]

Hillary's attorney, David Kendall, is quoted here about the server Hillary had used to store and process all her emails, saying: "no emails ... reside on the server or on any backup systems associated with the server."

In other words, the server has been wiped clean, with all emails that were on it, permanently deleted.

That's an interesting statement, coming from a lawyer.

Hillary has said that she decided for us, which emails she would allow us to see. She printed those out on paper, and then erased all the emails she thought we should not see. Her excuse was that she had decided they were not "work related". Now her lawyer says she erased ALL the emails on the server, apparently after preserving non-machine-searchable copies of some of them on paper.

Have a look at US Code, Title 18, Part 1, Chapter 101, Section 2071. It's a Federal law governing such things.

18 U.S. Code § 2071 - Concealment, removal, or mutilation generally

(a) Whoever willfully and unlawfully conceals, removes, mutilates, obliterates, or destroys, or attempts to do so, or, with intent to do so takes and carries away any record, proceeding, map, book, paper, document, or other thing, filed or deposited with any clerk or officer of any court of the United States, or in any public office, or with any judicial or public officer of the United States, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years, or both.

(b) Whoever, having the custody of any such record, proceeding, map, book, document, paper, or other thing, willfully and unlawfully conceals, removes, mutilates, obliterates, falsifies, or destroys the same, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years, or both; and shall forfeit his office and be disqualified from holding any office under the United States.

Note that this applies to "any record" held by a public official, not just the ones the person decides it's OK for us to see, or wants to withhold because an email is "personal".

In other words, with her legal representative stating that she destroyed the records she possessed and had decided not to allow us to see, she is now disqualified from holding any office. Including President. Barred by Federal law.

From her lawyer's mouth.

The big question: Will she obey this law???

------------------------------------------------------

Gowdy Clinton wiped email server clean deleted all emails - Yahoo News

Clinton wiped email server clean, deleted all emails

Associated Press
By MATTHEW DALY
45 minutes ago

WASHINGTON (AP) — Hillary Rodham Clinton wiped her email server "clean," permanently deleting all emails from it, the Republican chairman of a House committee investigating the 2012 Benghazi attacks said Friday.

Rep. Trey Gowdy, R-S.C., said the former secretary of state has failed to produce a single new document in recent weeks and has refused to relinquish her server to a third party for an independent review, as Gowdy has requested.

Clinton's attorney, David Kendall, said Gowdy was looking in the wrong place.

In a six-page letter released late Friday, Kendall said Clinton had turned over to the State Department all work-related emails sent or received during her tenure as secretary of state from 2009 to 2013.

"The Department of State is therefore in possession of all Secretary Clinton's work-related emails from the (personal email) account," Kendall wrote.

Kendall also said it would be pointless for Clinton to turn over her server, even if legally authorized, since "no emails ... reside on the server or on any backup systems associated with the server."

You are an idiot. Private e-mails are not public records.

Are you saying Hillary was using government assets to conduct personal business?

It was her own personal account. If it was a government asset she would not have had the authority to dump the server.

Are you saying she was using her own personal email account to conduct government business? Really?

 

[HUGGY]

Hillary's attorney, David Kendall, is quoted here about the server Hillary had used to store and process all her emails, saying: "no emails ... reside on the server or on any backup systems associated with the server."

In other words, the server has been wiped clean, with all emails that were on it, permanently deleted.

That's an interesting statement, coming from a lawyer.

Hillary has said that she decided for us, which emails she would allow us to see. She printed those out on paper, and then erased all the emails she thought we should not see. Her excuse was that she had decided they were not "work related". Now her lawyer says she erased ALL the emails on the server, apparently after preserving non-machine-searchable copies of some of them on paper.

Have a look at US Code, Title 18, Part 1, Chapter 101, Section 2071. It's a Federal law governing such things.

18 U.S. Code § 2071 - Concealment, removal, or mutilation generally

(a) Whoever willfully and unlawfully conceals, removes, mutilates, obliterates, or destroys, or attempts to do so, or, with intent to do so takes and carries away any record, proceeding, map, book, paper, document, or other thing, filed or deposited with any clerk or officer of any court of the United States, or in any public office, or with any judicial or public officer of the United States, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years, or both.

(b) Whoever, having the custody of any such record, proceeding, map, book, document, paper, or other thing, willfully and unlawfully conceals, removes, mutilates, obliterates, falsifies, or destroys the same, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years, or both; and shall forfeit his office and be disqualified from holding any office under the United States.

Note that this applies to "any record" held by a public official, not just the ones the person decides it's OK for us to see, or wants to withhold because an email is "personal".

In other words, with her legal representative stating that she destroyed the records she possessed and had decided not to allow us to see, she is now disqualified from holding any office. Including President. Barred by Federal law.

From her lawyer's mouth.

The big question: Will she obey this law???

------------------------------------------------------

Gowdy Clinton wiped email server clean deleted all emails - Yahoo News

Clinton wiped email server clean, deleted all emails

Associated Press
By MATTHEW DALY
45 minutes ago

WASHINGTON (AP) — Hillary Rodham Clinton wiped her email server "clean," permanently deleting all emails from it, the Republican chairman of a House committee investigating the 2012 Benghazi attacks said Friday.

Rep. Trey Gowdy, R-S.C., said the former secretary of state has failed to produce a single new document in recent weeks and has refused to relinquish her server to a third party for an independent review, as Gowdy has requested.

Clinton's attorney, David Kendall, said Gowdy was looking in the wrong place.

In a six-page letter released late Friday, Kendall said Clinton had turned over to the State Department all work-related emails sent or received during her tenure as secretary of state from 2009 to 2013.

"The Department of State is therefore in possession of all Secretary Clinton's work-related emails from the (personal email) account," Kendall wrote.

Kendall also said it would be pointless for Clinton to turn over her server, even if legally authorized, since "no emails ... reside on the server or on any backup systems associated with the server."

You are an idiot. Private e-mails are not public records.

Are you saying Hillary was using government assets to conduct personal business?

It was her own personal account. If it was a government asset she would not have had the authority to dump the server.

Are you saying she was using her own personal email account to conduct government business? Really?

I don't know that and either do you. From what I understand she had access to a government account also which she provided to the committee.

 

[RKMBrown]

Hillary's attorney, David Kendall, is quoted here about the server Hillary had used to store and process all her emails, saying: "no emails ... reside on the server or on any backup systems associated with the server."

In other words, the server has been wiped clean, with all emails that were on it, permanently deleted.

That's an interesting statement, coming from a lawyer.

Hillary has said that she decided for us, which emails she would allow us to see. She printed those out on paper, and then erased all the emails she thought we should not see. Her excuse was that she had decided they were not "work related". Now her lawyer says she erased ALL the emails on the server, apparently after preserving non-machine-searchable copies of some of them on paper.

Have a look at US Code, Title 18, Part 1, Chapter 101, Section 2071. It's a Federal law governing such things.

18 U.S. Code § 2071 - Concealment, removal, or mutilation generally

(a) Whoever willfully and unlawfully conceals, removes, mutilates, obliterates, or destroys, or attempts to do so, or, with intent to do so takes and carries away any record, proceeding, map, book, paper, document, or other thing, filed or deposited with any clerk or officer of any court of the United States, or in any public office, or with any judicial or public officer of the United States, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years, or both.

(b) Whoever, having the custody of any such record, proceeding, map, book, document, paper, or other thing, willfully and unlawfully conceals, removes, mutilates, obliterates, falsifies, or destroys the same, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years, or both; and shall forfeit his office and be disqualified from holding any office under the United States.

Note that this applies to "any record" held by a public official, not just the ones the person decides it's OK for us to see, or wants to withhold because an email is "personal".

In other words, with her legal representative stating that she destroyed the records she possessed and had decided not to allow us to see, she is now disqualified from holding any office. Including President. Barred by Federal law.

From her lawyer's mouth.

The big question: Will she obey this law???

------------------------------------------------------

Gowdy Clinton wiped email server clean deleted all emails - Yahoo News

Clinton wiped email server clean, deleted all emails

Associated Press
By MATTHEW DALY
45 minutes ago

WASHINGTON (AP) — Hillary Rodham Clinton wiped her email server "clean," permanently deleting all emails from it, the Republican chairman of a House committee investigating the 2012 Benghazi attacks said Friday.

Rep. Trey Gowdy, R-S.C., said the former secretary of state has failed to produce a single new document in recent weeks and has refused to relinquish her server to a third party for an independent review, as Gowdy has requested.

Clinton's attorney, David Kendall, said Gowdy was looking in the wrong place.

In a six-page letter released late Friday, Kendall said Clinton had turned over to the State Department all work-related emails sent or received during her tenure as secretary of state from 2009 to 2013.

"The Department of State is therefore in possession of all Secretary Clinton's work-related emails from the (personal email) account," Kendall wrote.

Kendall also said it would be pointless for Clinton to turn over her server, even if legally authorized, since "no emails ... reside on the server or on any backup systems associated with the server."

You are an idiot. Private e-mails are not public records.

Are you saying Hillary was using government assets to conduct personal business?

It was her own personal account. If it was a government asset she would not have had the authority to dump the server.

Are you saying she was using her own personal email account to conduct government business? Really?

I don't know that and either do you.

Well either... she was using a personal email account to conduct government business and deleted the personal stuff that was on her personal account.... or she was using a government email account to conduct personal business and deleted the personal stuff that was on her government account. Can't have it both ways. Which wrong should we accuse her of?

 

[HUGGY]

Yeah good luck with that.

TRANSLATION: Laws are for the little people, not for us. We Democrats will get away with it anyway.

Personal records aren't what is being discussed. Per your rather expansive definition of 'records', if any public official were to jot down a shopping list at home, its a 'record is possession of a public official'. And throwing their shopping list would be a punishable offense.

As Old School said, 'good luck with that'.

Actually, the definition of records isn't like that at all.

That's exactly my point. Per the OP's definition of 'records', any note, email, entry in her blackberry, or post it was a 'record'. Regardless of where it was made, or for what purpose. And since the OP's sole standard is 'in possession of a public official', a post-it with a shopping list made at home would quality.

The definition of 'record' being used by the OP is too broad. And it seems we agree.

It's very simple. All her correspondence for the State Department were supposed to happen on the official server. Hillary in stead used her own, giving her direct control over what should have been government record from the moment it was sent, then decided on her own which correspondences were revelant and deleted the rest.

All of that is true, though the official server idea is a bit more nebulous. Hillary used the exact same set up as Colin Powell, who did essentially the same thing. And not a peep from house or senate republicans. So its clearly not the use of a private server that causes the issue.

And the law requires that she turn over State Department communications. Which according to her, she did. If there's evidence that she didn't, present it. But if insinuations are all you have, you're not going to make much headway.

All of this while her foundation is taking donations from foreign entities, and we're supposed to take her word that using her own server had nothing to do with the apparent conflict of interest, AND take her word for the evidence -she- coughed up being all the relevant evidence? Since when do we trust suspects to dictate the scope and direction of their own investigations?

What conflict of interest? See, here's the rub; there's no evidence of special accommodation for, well, anyone. That's why these insinuations have had such a hard time sticking: there is no evidence of special treatment. Regardless of donations.

If some CEO had pulled some, "I gave you all the relevant evidence and destroyed the rest of what you wanted to look at because it didn't relate to the case" type shit, every Democrat from here to that CEOS pocket would be calling bullshit, and rightly so. But when it's one of our exalted progressive leaders, their word is basically gospel. Hillary says none of it was relevant and people actually claim that this -proves- her innocence.

The obvious problem with your analysis is that she doesn't have to 'prove her innocence'. She is innocent until it can be proven otherwise. And there's no evidence of a conflict of interest, special treatment, or destroyed records.

There's insinuations up the ass. But no actual evidence.

Though in fairness, if this had been a CEO, you're probably right. Lots and lots of folks would call bullshit.

This inquiry and accusation is such a load of crap. The foundation these cretins are so worked up over saves the lives of millions of people all over the globe. They have spent HUNDREDS of billions on AIDS and malnutrition and education to some of the poorest human beings in the poorest regions of the poorest countries. They have set up hospitals to combat Ebola. The RWers foundations mostly benefit the RWers, They set up golf tournaments and brag on TV about giving away a few thousand bucks or the wing of an American hospital with their name on it and the Clintons foundation has been doing the hard word in the poorest places without all the fan fare and self congratulating... RWers disgust me.

 

[HUGGY]

You are an idiot. Private e-mails are not public records.

Are you saying Hillary was using government assets to conduct personal business?

It was her own personal account. If it was a government asset she would not have had the authority to dump the server.

Are you saying she was using her own personal email account to conduct government business? Really?

I don't know that and either do you.

Well either... she was using a personal email account to conduct government business and deleted the personal stuff that was on her personal account.... or she was using a government email account to conduct personal business and deleted the personal stuff that was on her government account. Can't have it both ways. Which wrong should we accuse her of?

You have proof Clinton deleted government business? Really? That's a crime isn't it? You should tell someone in authority.

 

[RKMBrown]

Are you saying Hillary was using government assets to conduct personal business?

It was her own personal account. If it was a government asset she would not have had the authority to dump the server.

Are you saying she was using her own personal email account to conduct government business? Really?

I don't know that and either do you.

Well either... she was using a personal email account to conduct government business and deleted the personal stuff that was on her personal account.... or she was using a government email account to conduct personal business and deleted the personal stuff that was on her government account. Can't have it both ways. Which wrong should we accuse her of?

You have proof Clinton deleted government business? Really? That's a crime isn't it? You should tell someone in authority.

Do you have some sort of reading comprehension problem that we should know about?

 

[HUGGY]

It was her own personal account. If it was a government asset she would not have had the authority to dump the server.

Are you saying she was using her own personal email account to conduct government business? Really?

I don't know that and either do you.

Well either... she was using a personal email account to conduct government business and deleted the personal stuff that was on her personal account.... or she was using a government email account to conduct personal business and deleted the personal stuff that was on her government account. Can't have it both ways. Which wrong should we accuse her of?

You have proof Clinton deleted government business? Really? That's a crime isn't it? You should tell someone in authority.

Do you have some sort of reading comprehension problem that we should know about?

I know you are but what am I?

Y'a know Sparky...this stuff is all playing out well several levels above my pay grade. In the OP it states one thing and you are all arguing something else. I don't believe the OP's rant covers private communications. Period. I don't like where this vitriol is coming from. Daryll Issa is a fucking snake. So is Boener. So is the GOP leader in the Senate. Now THERE is a pack of thieves and liars that should be doing hard time.

You cry babies have been ragging on Obama for over 6 years and before that ramrodded the country into two illegal wars. Then you had the AUDACITY to get a hard on because of how a terrorist attack on a single residence in an out of the way town of Benghazi where an idiot queer was hanging out with a couple of private contractors got killed got REPORTED? You people are fucking straight up out of your teensy weensie minds. Here is your answer to my reading comprehension.. Go fuck yourselves.

 

[Faun]

You are an idiot. Private e-mails are not public records.

Are you saying Hillary was using government assets to conduct personal business?

It was her own personal account. If it was a government asset she would not have had the authority to dump the server.

Are you saying she was using her own personal email account to conduct government business? Really?

I don't know that and either do you.

Well either... she was using a personal email account to conduct government business and deleted the personal stuff that was on her personal account.... or she was using a government email account to conduct personal business and deleted the personal stuff that was on her government account. Can't have it both ways. Which wrong should we accuse her of?

Or she could have been using a personal email account for personal stuff, which she deleted; and a government email account for government stuff.

 

[Faun]

Hillary's attorney, David Kendall, is quoted here about the server Hillary had used to store and process all her emails, saying: "no emails ... reside on the server or on any backup systems associated with the server."

In other words, the server has been wiped clean, with all emails that were on it, permanently deleted.

That's an interesting statement, coming from a lawyer.

Hillary has said that she decided for us, which emails she would allow us to see. She printed those out on paper, and then erased all the emails she thought we should not see. Her excuse was that she had decided they were not "work related". Now her lawyer says she erased ALL the emails on the server, apparently after preserving non-machine-searchable copies of some of them on paper.

Have a look at US Code, Title 18, Part 1, Chapter 101, Section 2071. It's a Federal law governing such things.

18 U.S. Code § 2071 - Concealment, removal, or mutilation generally

(a) Whoever willfully and unlawfully conceals, removes, mutilates, obliterates, or destroys, or attempts to do so, or, with intent to do so takes and carries away any record, proceeding, map, book, paper, document, or other thing, filed or deposited with any clerk or officer of any court of the United States, or in any public office, or with any judicial or public officer of the United States, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years, or both.

(b) Whoever, having the custody of any such record, proceeding, map, book, document, paper, or other thing, willfully and unlawfully conceals, removes, mutilates, obliterates, falsifies, or destroys the same, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years, or both; and shall forfeit his office and be disqualified from holding any office under the United States.

Note that this applies to "any record" held by a public official, not just the ones the person decides it's OK for us to see, or wants to withhold because an email is "personal".

In other words, with her legal representative stating that she destroyed the records she possessed and had decided not to allow us to see, she is now disqualified from holding any office. Including President. Barred by Federal law.

From her lawyer's mouth.

The big question: Will she obey this law???

------------------------------------------------------

Gowdy Clinton wiped email server clean deleted all emails - Yahoo News

Clinton wiped email server clean, deleted all emails

Associated Press
By MATTHEW DALY
45 minutes ago

WASHINGTON (AP) — Hillary Rodham Clinton wiped her email server "clean," permanently deleting all emails from it, the Republican chairman of a House committee investigating the 2012 Benghazi attacks said Friday.

Rep. Trey Gowdy, R-S.C., said the former secretary of state has failed to produce a single new document in recent weeks and has refused to relinquish her server to a third party for an independent review, as Gowdy has requested.

Clinton's attorney, David Kendall, said Gowdy was looking in the wrong place.

In a six-page letter released late Friday, Kendall said Clinton had turned over to the State Department all work-related emails sent or received during her tenure as secretary of state from 2009 to 2013.

"The Department of State is therefore in possession of all Secretary Clinton's work-related emails from the (personal email) account," Kendall wrote.

Kendall also said it would be pointless for Clinton to turn over her server, even if legally authorized, since "no emails ... reside on the server or on any backup systems associated with the server."

A key aspect of that statute in regards to her email is, "filed or deposited with any clerk or officer of any court of the United States, or in any public office, or with any judicial or public officer of the United States"

For Hillary to have violated that law requires that she destroyed email which had been "filed or deposited" with at least one of the specified jurisdictions. Not sure how that can be proved without the email?

Normally there's an smtp server and the sending / receiving computers... oh yeah and the NSA copies all of our emails as well...

If the emails are located on a government server somewhere, what law was broken?

 

[Not2BSubjugated]

Yeah good luck with that.

TRANSLATION: Laws are for the little people, not for us. We Democrats will get away with it anyway.

Personal records aren't what is being discussed. Per your rather expansive definition of 'records', if any public official were to jot down a shopping list at home, its a 'record is possession of a public official'. And throwing their shopping list would be a punishable offense.

As Old School said, 'good luck with that'.

Actually, the definition of records isn't like that at all.

That's exactly my point. Per the OP's definition of 'records', any note, email, entry in her blackberry, or post it was a 'record'. Regardless of where it was made, or for what purpose. And since the OP's sole standard is 'in possession of a public official', a post-it with a shopping list made at home would quality.

The definition of 'record' being used by the OP is too broad. And it seems we agree.

It's very simple. All her correspondence for the State Department were supposed to happen on the official server. Hillary in stead used her own, giving her direct control over what should have been government record from the moment it was sent, then decided on her own which correspondences were revelant and deleted the rest.

All of that is true, though the official server idea is a bit more nebulous. Hillary used the exact same set up as Colin Powell, who did essentially the same thing. And not a peep from house or senate republicans. So its clearly not the use of a private server that causes the issue.

And the law requires that she turn over State Department communications. Which according to her, she did. If there's evidence that she didn't, present it. But if insinuations are all you have, you're not going to make much headway.

All of this while her foundation is taking donations from foreign entities, and we're supposed to take her word that using her own server had nothing to do with the apparent conflict of interest, AND take her word for the evidence -she- coughed up being all the relevant evidence? Since when do we trust suspects to dictate the scope and direction of their own investigations?

What conflict of interest? See, here's the rub; there's no evidence of special accommodation for, well, anyone. That's why these insinuations have had such a hard time sticking: there is no evidence of special treatment. Regardless of donations.

If some CEO had pulled some, "I gave you all the relevant evidence and destroyed the rest of what you wanted to look at because it didn't relate to the case" type shit, every Democrat from here to that CEOS pocket would be calling bullshit, and rightly so. But when it's one of our exalted progressive leaders, their word is basically gospel. Hillary says none of it was relevant and people actually claim that this -proves- her innocence.

The obvious problem with your analysis is that she doesn't have to 'prove her innocence'. She is innocent until it can be proven otherwise. And there's no evidence of a conflict of interest, special treatment, or destroyed records.

There's insinuations up the ass. But no actual evidence.

Though in fairness, if this had been a CEO, you're probably right. Lots and lots of folks would call bullshit.

First point, no, we don't agree. If the email account is what she used to conduct the State Department business that should have been conducted on the official server, then those emails would logically be the relevant records. Not every random scrap on which she scribbled a shopping list. Granted, she managed to avoid keeping everything she didn't want seen out of official hands until it was disposed of, so well played on Hillary's part, legally speaking. We do agree that she eluded the statute the OP quoted. I only make this distinction because broadening the intended scope of records sought is an inaccurate way to characterize this as a ridiculous witch hunt. If it is that, actual facts should suffice in illustrating that.

Second point, Colin Powell should've been called out on that shit. The fact that someone of an opposing viewpoint has gotten away with the same bullshit, however, doesn't excuse anyone. Also, to my knowledge, Colin Powell wasnt affiliated with any organizations taking large monetary donations from foreign entities who had business before the department while Powell was secretary, which makes the server dodge appear more blatantly insidious in Hillary's case.

Lastly, you keep going back to this point that there is insufficient evidence for a conviction. I get that, believe me. The problem I have as a skeptic is that, if evidence of wrongdoing existed, it was on that server that she wiped, and there is plenty of reason to suspect a conflict of interest.

Now, I'm not arguing for a conviction in court based on hunches and circumstantial evidence, but I continue to point this shit out because it baffles me that someone could smell so strongly of bullshit and yet so many worshippers could still hold their nose, declare that her word that what she chose to hand over was all of the official correspondence proves her innocence, and get behind this snake's presidential candidacy.

The OJ evidence was also deemed insufficient for a conviction, but I wouldn't set my sister up on a blind date with the guy.

 

[Clementine]

Yeah good luck with that.

Of course you say that. You know that Dems feel that the end justifies their means and not a single Dem will hold her responsible for breaking the law.

 

[Clementine]

If the emails are located on a government server somewhere, what law was broken?

She claimed they were deleted after refusing to turn them over. Just because she wasn't successful in deleting them doesn't mean we should let her off the hook.

She was committing a crime by even trying to delete them. She also refused to cooperate with the investigation. I don't care how you slice it, she should not get away with it.

 

[RKMBrown]

Are you saying she was using her own personal email account to conduct government business? Really?

I don't know that and either do you.

Well either... she was using a personal email account to conduct government business and deleted the personal stuff that was on her personal account.... or she was using a government email account to conduct personal business and deleted the personal stuff that was on her government account. Can't have it both ways. Which wrong should we accuse her of?

You have proof Clinton deleted government business? Really? That's a crime isn't it? You should tell someone in authority.

Do you have some sort of reading comprehension problem that we should know about?

I know you are but what am I?

Y'a know Sparky...this stuff is all playing out well several levels above my pay grade. In the OP it states one thing and you are all arguing something else. I don't believe the OP's rant covers private communications. Period. I don't like where this vitriol is coming from. Daryll Issa is a fucking snake. So is Boener. So is the GOP leader in the Senate. Now THERE is a pack of thieves and liars that should be doing hard time.

You cry babies have been ragging on Obama for over 6 years and before that ramrodded the country into two illegal wars. Then you had the AUDACITY to get a hard on because of how a terrorist attack on a single residence in an out of the way town of Benghazi where an idiot queer was hanging out with a couple of private contractors got killed got REPORTED? You people are fucking straight up out of your teensy weensie minds. Here is your answer to my reading comprehension.. Go fuck yourselves.

Let me get this straight. I say from her own account, she was either using a personal account for government business or a government account for personal business and in response make up some dumb ass lie about me saying she deleted government email. Then when I call you out on your dumb ass statement you say I know you are but what am I. So basically you are mentally handicapped. Then you go off on a rant about republican leaders, apparently blaming them for the major suck that that is Obama and Hillary. Yeah.. wow.. So basically you are a mentally handicapped democrat piece of shit. I'll be you blame republicans for you sucking at life.

 

[RKMBrown]

Are you saying Hillary was using government assets to conduct personal business?

It was her own personal account. If it was a government asset she would not have had the authority to dump the server.

Are you saying she was using her own personal email account to conduct government business? Really?

I don't know that and either do you.

Well either... she was using a personal email account to conduct government business and deleted the personal stuff that was on her personal account.... or she was using a government email account to conduct personal business and deleted the personal stuff that was on her government account. Can't have it both ways. Which wrong should we accuse her of?

Or she could have been using a personal email account for personal stuff, which she deleted; and a government email account for government stuff.

Well then why didn't she say that? Why did she make up shit about picking and choosing which emails are hers and which were government before she wiped her hard drive? Does this seem like someone that has nothing to hide?

 

[RKMBrown]

Hillary's attorney, David Kendall, is quoted here about the server Hillary had used to store and process all her emails, saying: "no emails ... reside on the server or on any backup systems associated with the server."

In other words, the server has been wiped clean, with all emails that were on it, permanently deleted.

That's an interesting statement, coming from a lawyer.

Hillary has said that she decided for us, which emails she would allow us to see. She printed those out on paper, and then erased all the emails she thought we should not see. Her excuse was that she had decided they were not "work related". Now her lawyer says she erased ALL the emails on the server, apparently after preserving non-machine-searchable copies of some of them on paper.

Have a look at US Code, Title 18, Part 1, Chapter 101, Section 2071. It's a Federal law governing such things.

18 U.S. Code § 2071 - Concealment, removal, or mutilation generally

(a) Whoever willfully and unlawfully conceals, removes, mutilates, obliterates, or destroys, or attempts to do so, or, with intent to do so takes and carries away any record, proceeding, map, book, paper, document, or other thing, filed or deposited with any clerk or officer of any court of the United States, or in any public office, or with any judicial or public officer of the United States, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years, or both.

(b) Whoever, having the custody of any such record, proceeding, map, book, document, paper, or other thing, willfully and unlawfully conceals, removes, mutilates, obliterates, falsifies, or destroys the same, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years, or both; and shall forfeit his office and be disqualified from holding any office under the United States.

Note that this applies to "any record" held by a public official, not just the ones the person decides it's OK for us to see, or wants to withhold because an email is "personal".

In other words, with her legal representative stating that she destroyed the records she possessed and had decided not to allow us to see, she is now disqualified from holding any office. Including President. Barred by Federal law.

From her lawyer's mouth.

The big question: Will she obey this law???

------------------------------------------------------

Gowdy Clinton wiped email server clean deleted all emails - Yahoo News

Clinton wiped email server clean, deleted all emails

Associated Press
By MATTHEW DALY
45 minutes ago

WASHINGTON (AP) — Hillary Rodham Clinton wiped her email server "clean," permanently deleting all emails from it, the Republican chairman of a House committee investigating the 2012 Benghazi attacks said Friday.

Rep. Trey Gowdy, R-S.C., said the former secretary of state has failed to produce a single new document in recent weeks and has refused to relinquish her server to a third party for an independent review, as Gowdy has requested.

Clinton's attorney, David Kendall, said Gowdy was looking in the wrong place.

In a six-page letter released late Friday, Kendall said Clinton had turned over to the State Department all work-related emails sent or received during her tenure as secretary of state from 2009 to 2013.

"The Department of State is therefore in possession of all Secretary Clinton's work-related emails from the (personal email) account," Kendall wrote.

Kendall also said it would be pointless for Clinton to turn over her server, even if legally authorized, since "no emails ... reside on the server or on any backup systems associated with the server."

A key aspect of that statute in regards to her email is, "filed or deposited with any clerk or officer of any court of the United States, or in any public office, or with any judicial or public officer of the United States"

For Hillary to have violated that law requires that she destroyed email which had been "filed or deposited" with at least one of the specified jurisdictions. Not sure how that can be proved without the email?

Normally there's an smtp server and the sending / receiving computers... oh yeah and the NSA copies all of our emails as well...

If the emails are located on a government server somewhere, what law was broken?

None that I know of.

 

[Faun]

If the emails are located on a government server somewhere, what law was broken?

She claimed they were deleted after refusing to turn them over. Just because she wasn't successful in deleting them doesn't mean we should let her off the hook.

She was committing a crime by even trying to delete them. She also refused to cooperate with the investigation. I don't care how you slice it, she should not get away with it.

Really? Cite the law which states found emails constitute permanently deleted emails.....

 

[HUGGY]

I don't know that and either do you.

Well either... she was using a personal email account to conduct government business and deleted the personal stuff that was on her personal account.... or she was using a government email account to conduct personal business and deleted the personal stuff that was on her government account. Can't have it both ways. Which wrong should we accuse her of?

You have proof Clinton deleted government business? Really? That's a crime isn't it? You should tell someone in authority.

Do you have some sort of reading comprehension problem that we should know about?

I know you are but what am I?

Y'a know Sparky...this stuff is all playing out well several levels above my pay grade. In the OP it states one thing and you are all arguing something else. I don't believe the OP's rant covers private communications. Period. I don't like where this vitriol is coming from. Daryll Issa is a fucking snake. So is Boener. So is the GOP leader in the Senate. Now THERE is a pack of thieves and liars that should be doing hard time.

You cry babies have been ragging on Obama for over 6 years and before that ramrodded the country into two illegal wars. Then you had the AUDACITY to get a hard on because of how a terrorist attack on a single residence in an out of the way town of Benghazi where an idiot queer was hanging out with a couple of private contractors got killed got REPORTED? You people are fucking straight up out of your teensy weensie minds. Here is your answer to my reading comprehension.. Go fuck yourselves.

Let me get this straight. I say from her own account, she was either using a personal account for government business or a government account for personal business and in response make up some dumb ass lie about me saying she deleted government email. Then when I call you out on your dumb ass statement you say I know you are but what am I. So basically you are mentally handicapped. Then you go off on a rant about republican leaders, apparently blaming them for the major suck that that is Obama and Hillary. Yeah.. wow.. So basically you are a mentally handicapped democrat piece of shit. I'll be you blame republicans for you sucking at life.

You "getting it straight" seems a hopeless improbability. I am not a democrat. Never voted for one. There is more evidence that you are stupid than Hillary did something illegal. My life is fine. You are too much of an idiot to know how yours is going.

 

[BULLDOG]

If you mean the Clintons are very good at proving all the right wing claims and accusations made against them are just so much manufactured crap, you are correct. It must be embarrassing for you to try so hard to come up with something that holds water, but fail miserably every time.

The Clintons have never proved anything.

They shred evidence, delete crucial emails, lose records, hold meetings in secret, refuse to answer questions, conduct official business on private servers that govt oversight cannot reach, ignore subpoenas, and deny and deflect everything they can. Then they clam up and sit back and wait for others to prove anything against them, after they have eliminated all evidence of what they have done.

If you want to play semantics, then you could be right. It's damn near impossible to prove a negative. I should have said the right wing crazies have proven that they can't provide believable evidence for all the crazy accusations they have made. They are good at sitting back and watching all your efforts go up in flames. They have had a lot of practice doing that.