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

[Skylar]

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.

And those emails were printed out and turned over. At least according to Hillary. We can debate if she actually did what she claimed she did. But in terms of the evidence, she's got her bases covered. She was statutorily required to print those records out and keep them. And she did.

If you have evidence that she didn't turn over State department emails, by all means present it. But as of today, there's no such evidence.

Second point, Colin Powell should've been called out on that shit.

So say conservatives now. But not so then. Their concept of accountability is entirely situation. An in Colin Powell's case, it was far, far worse. As he didn't simply delete 'personal emails'. There were entire blocks of time, months....where ALL emails were deleted. Months were there were no records.

And conservatives didn't say a thing save to defend Powell. Demonstrating elegantly and undeniably that its neither the use of a private email server OR the deletion of emails is their standard of accountability or legal violation. And that this is merely another political game.

The people largely understand this too. The GOP has cried wolf too loudly and too often. And been able to back up none of it. Once again they weep and wail and gnash their teeth. And have been able to back none of it. And they wonder why Hillary's numbers don't budge and the American people collectively yawn.

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 wasn't 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.

Again, you first have to demonstrate preferential treatment before you can begin claiming conflict of interest. And there's simply no evidence of that either. You're arguing by insinuation. And insinuations are like assholes. Everyone's got one. And they're usually full of shit.

If you have evidence of a conflict of interest, present it. But like Hillary not turning over State Department emails, as of today no such evidence exists.

Regardless of what you think about Hillary, you have to admit: she's thorough. And she makes sure her bases are covered. Both are excellent qualities in a President.

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.

Your 'plenty of reason to suspect' breaks on this simple fact: there are no examples of preferential treatment. There's no about face that the State Department did at Hillary's order. There's no threshold that the State Department held all other parties to but not her donors. There's nothing. Donor or non-donor, there's no demonstration of preferential treatment to anyone.

This simply destroys the 'conflict of interest' narrative. As it makes a conflict of interest a physical impossibility. And that's before you even try to prove it.

It also destroys your 'plenty of reason to suspect'. As no instance of preferential treatment makes your narrative impossible too.

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.

Here are the parts I think you're missing:

1) There's no evidence of preferential treatment. Meaning that there was no pay to play with the State Department. The meat of the accusations are a physical impossibility without the preferential treatment. And the meat is central to the validity of the 'conflict of interest' accusations.

If they claims have no validity, why would a rational person hold them against Hillary?

2) Republicans are notorious fishermen. And try to use investigations into one area to search for accusations in another. And in almost every instance, these secondary accusations turn out to be bullshit too. Deleting the personal emails rob the GOP of the opportunity to fish on unrelated matters.

3) This is obviously political maneuvering by republicans. As demonstrated elegantly by their support of Powell in similar but far more egregious circumstances. And their mock outrage in this one. Which only goes to reinforce point number 2.

There are obviously politically motivated shenanigans afoot. Hillary simply played the game better than the GOP. Reason number 1 alone is more than ample evidence to continue to support Hillary in the face of this 'scandal'. As the integral and undeniable component of a valid 'pay for preferential treatment' scheme......is the preferential treatment.

Which simply doesn't exist.

 

[RKMBrown]

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.

So you agree you were lying about me saying she deleted government email. Glad we got that straight, ya dumb ass.

 

[Little-Acorn]

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".

The relevant parts:

(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 filed or deposited with any 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 or other thing, willfully and unlawfully conceals, removes, mutilates, obliterates, falsifies, or destroys the same, shall be disqualified from holding any office under the United States.

Hillary was a public officer of the United States (Secretary of State). She had custody of the records. "Any record" obviously includes emails, and was intended to include ANY kind of record. Her lawyer admits she destroyed them.

Case closed.

So, who else do the Dems have who, unlike Hillary, is legally allowed to hold the office of President?

 

[Skylar]

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".

The relevant parts:

(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 filed or deposited with any 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 or other thing, willfully and unlawfully conceals, removes, mutilates, obliterates, falsifies, or destroys the same, shall be disqualified from holding any office under the United States.

Hillary was a public officer of the United States (Secretary of State). She had custody of the records. "Any record" obviously includes emails, and was intended to include ANY kind of record. Her lawyer admits she destroyed them.

Case closed.

So, who else do the Dems have who, unlike Hillary, is legally allowed to hold the office of President?

Says you. The printing of those emails and turning them over to the government contradicts your 'destroyed' narrative. As the emails exist in paper form. As they're required to per the law.

 

[Little-Acorn]

Says you.

Says the law. Read it and weep.

The printing of those emails and turning them over to the government contradicts your 'destroyed' narrative. As the emails exist in paper form. As they're required to per the law.

Isn't it cute how liberal fanatics act when they lose an argument? Their lies flow even thicker and faster. Now this one is trying to pretend Hillary didn't destroy any emails!

 

[Little-Acorn]

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

Here's a liberal who wants to fool us into believing the law refers to "public records".

(Did somebody mention, being an idiot?)

 

[Siete]

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

Here's a liberal who wants to fool us into believing the law refers to "public records".

(Did somebody mention, being an idiot?)

I ADMIT YOU'RE AN IDIOT !

no law was broken ... IDIOT.

 

[HUGGY]

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

Here's a liberal who wants to fool us into believing the law refers to "public records".

(Did somebody mention, being an idiot?)

"Here's a liberal" You have some proof of that Sparky? Of course you don't. None exists. You new RWers just keep running on at the mouth telling your lies. The stupidity you express every time you open your mouth is the prime example of the evil that corrupts and threatens our nation.

This fool wants us to believe that any person working in any public office elected or not..even a secretary. cannot delete any of their electronic messages for fear of this law he is trying to push off as reason that Hillary is not now eligible to run for office

Well by all means Pilgrim...you go to Washington DC and proceed with a citizens arrest of Hillary seeing as how you are so well armed with the law being on your side and all.

 

[Little-Acorn]

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

Here's a liberal who wants to fool us into believing the law refers to "public records".

(Did somebody mention, being an idiot?)

I ADMIT YOU'RE AN IDIOT !

no law was broken ... IDIOT.

And here's another liberal fanatic, dividing his time between calling names and clapping hands over his ears and chanting, "No, it isn't, no, it isn't, no, it isn't, I can't hear you, LA LA LA LA LA LA, no, it isn't no, it isn't....".

These people are so sad....

 

[HUGGY]

This thread cracks me up. I will try to remember to bump it when Hillary wins the nomination so these neo RWers can run around with their hair on fire alternately screaming Benghazi and whatever we will call this fiasco of an attempt tp prevent her from running.

You guys are sure scared of this woman. It's too bad you haven't been able to find a responsible republican to fill the office for nearly 24 years. I would love to go back to voting GOP but the ass clowns that have risen to the top are not cream...just scum.

 

[RKMBrown]

This thread cracks me up. I will try to remember to bump it when Hillary wins the nomination so these neo RWers can run around with their hair on fire alternately screaming Benghazi and whatever we will call this fiasco of an attempt tp prevent her from running.

You guys are sure scared of this woman. It's too bad you haven't been able to find a responsible republican to fill the office for nearly 24 years. I would love to go back to voting GOP but the ass clowns that have risen to the top are not cream...just scum.

You're a lying piece of shit. You don't have a job. You need Billary to save your welfare stream.

 

[HUGGY]

This thread cracks me up. I will try to remember to bump it when Hillary wins the nomination so these neo RWers can run around with their hair on fire alternately screaming Benghazi and whatever we will call this fiasco of an attempt tp prevent her from running.

You guys are sure scared of this woman. It's too bad you haven't been able to find a responsible republican to fill the office for nearly 24 years. I would love to go back to voting GOP but the ass clowns that have risen to the top are not cream...just scum.

You're a lying piece of shit. You don't have a job. You need Billary to save your welfare stream.

HHHMMMMmm.... ???? I wonder what that check was I picked up this afternoon? I get one similar to it every two weeks. Sometimes more ..sometimes less..it depends on if I make any repairs to the buildings.

 

[RKMBrown]

This thread cracks me up. I will try to remember to bump it when Hillary wins the nomination so these neo RWers can run around with their hair on fire alternately screaming Benghazi and whatever we will call this fiasco of an attempt tp prevent her from running.

You guys are sure scared of this woman. It's too bad you haven't been able to find a responsible republican to fill the office for nearly 24 years. I would love to go back to voting GOP but the ass clowns that have risen to the top are not cream...just scum.

You're a lying piece of shit. You don't have a job. You need Billary to save your welfare stream.

HHHMMMMmm.... ???? I wonder what that check was I picked up this afternoon? I get one similar to it every two weeks. Sometimes more ..sometimes less..it depends on if I make any repairs to the buildings.

Admission noted, that you are on a welfare stream because your income stream is sparse and intermittent. I think it's important to recognize when someone is voting for the income redistribution party because they personally benefit from same, and not because they are being generous with their income.

 

[saintmichaeldefendthem]

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".

The relevant parts:

(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 filed or deposited with any 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 or other thing, willfully and unlawfully conceals, removes, mutilates, obliterates, falsifies, or destroys the same, shall be disqualified from holding any office under the United States.

Hillary was a public officer of the United States (Secretary of State). She had custody of the records. "Any record" obviously includes emails, and was intended to include ANY kind of record. Her lawyer admits she destroyed them.

Case closed.

So, who else do the Dems have who, unlike Hillary, is legally allowed to hold the office of President?

Says you. The printing of those emails and turning them over to the government contradicts your 'destroyed' narrative. As the emails exist in paper form. As they're required to per the law.

I agree that the Clinton crime family is too smart to trip over this law.