Translation: Cover up
Quote them. All I see is your baseless allegation that contradicts what I read. See this last exchange:
Quit yapping - we don't care about your opinions - show us the evidence. Very simple and straightforward request.
Yea, they disclosed everything....:roll:
FBI discovers 14,900 emails not disclosed by Hillary Clinton
https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/public-safety/fbi-uncovered-at-least-14900-more-documents-in-clinton-email-investigation/2016/08/22/36745578-6643-11e6-be4e-23fc4d4d12b4_story.html?0p19G=c
Remember earlier when I said you were projecting your naivete ? Your'e doing it again...
https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/6391
Talking points and strategies to get around FOIA and House Oversight subpoena's
I am Jack's Complete Lack Of Surprise.
No it doesn't. Read that last exchange. "Yes to both."
Or, if you think it does, quote the relevant part of the exchanges.
It's a long email - don't see the problem. Can you explain what your point was?
I'm sure you see what is going on in the media, and here on DP.
Dozens of threads on Trump drooling and allegedly groping, and almost nothing on the damning email revelations.
Total avoidance, total denial. Let the thread die.
It makes one wonder who, or what, many of the left sided posters are on this site.
We already know what the MSM has become.
https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/6391
Talking points and strategies to get around FOIA and House Oversight subpoena's
Trump staffers discuss how many victims of his sex offenses will come forward in the next few weeks.....
Wow, great post !
Because if one's things certain, its the fact that Trumps supposed and unproven indiscretions are far more relevent than a corrupt, above the law,two faced elitist influencing the outcome of her own FBI investigation
Clinton was required (as a govt employee) to turn over all of the emails that were related to anything that had to do with the state department. The email shows that they were only going to turn over the ones that had to do with Libya. Even after she said she turned over all of her work related emails, under oath, it was found that she still had not turned in all of her work related emails. The email shows that she had no intention of turning any emails that she wasn't ordered to. You can go read it yourself. I am not going to quote it. Just follow the little links back.
I bolded the area is what I was referring to. You chose to ignore it and compose a question to which it indicates your intentions to ignore it. I could but it would fall on deaf ears. You are too buried in denial. It would be a waste of my time. You ignored it once so you will ignore it again.
Clinton was required (as a govt employee) to turn over all of the emails that were related to anything that had to do with the state department. The email shows that they were only going to turn over the ones that had to do with Libya. Even after she said she turned over all of her work related emails, under oath, it was found that she still had not turned in all of her work related emails. The email shows that she had no intention of turning any emails that she wasn't ordered to. You can go read it yourself. I am not going to quote it. Just follow the little links back.
From:cheryl.mills@gmail.com
To: robbymook@gmail.com
Date: 2015-03-04 21:10
Subject: Re: Subpoena Issuance
right to both
On Wed, Mar 4, 2015 at 6:09 PM, Robby Mook <robbymook@gmail.com> wrote:
> Just for clarity: this House subpoena is just for Libya, right?
> We were discussing releasing everything, no?
What I see is the CF requesting money from Qatar and them wanting 5 minutes with Bill to give them a check for $1 million, part of a larger $20 million donation. There have been all kinds of allegations of pay to play, but that's not it. If you have context I'm missing, surely you can summarize it in a couple of lines. But what is in that email seems perfectly ordinary for that kind of thing to me.
https://www.yahoo.com/news/in-leake...d-qatari-governments-fund-isis-221758254.html“We need to use our diplomatic and more traditional intelligence assets to bring pressure on the governments of Qatar and Saudi Arabia, which are providing clandestine financial and logistic support to ISIL and other radical Sunni groups in the region.”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LGBT_rights_in_QatarSince 2004, Article 296 of the current Penal Code (Law 11/2004)[2] stipulate imprisonment between 1 and 3 years for sodomy between men. This is a slight revision of the original law that stipulated up to five years imprisonment for male homosexuality.
In 1995 an American citizen visiting Qatar was sentenced to six months in prison and 90 lashes for homosexual activity.[3] In the 1990s, Philippine Overseas Employment Administration informed Philippine workers that gay workers were prohibited in Qatar. This was in response to several mass arrests and deportations of Philippine workers in Qatar, for homosexuality.[4]
Link here for your convenience: https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/6391
I'll try a newfangled thing on this place and quote from it:
Here's the relevant part of the subpoena: "The Select Committee on Benghazi today issued subpoenas for all communications of former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton related to Libya..."
So they were supposedly only going to turn over emails related to Libya because that is the records demanded. Only the emails didn't say that. Again, from the exchange:
Explain what Mills meant by "both" if not 1) Libya and 2) "everything."
Oh yeah, I did. She was required to immediately turn over all of her emails when she left the office of Sec State by government regulation. She didn't do that, now did she? There should never had been a need for a subpoena to Clinton if she had turned over the docs like she was supposed to.Clinton was required (as a govt employee) to turn over all of the emails that were related to anything that had to do with the state department.
https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/2842429/ESP-16-03-Final.pdfFor departing employees, the FAM gave the administrative section of each office, bureau, or post the responsibility for reminding all employees who are about to leave the Department or the Foreign Service of the laws and regulations pertaining to the disposition of personal papers and official records; seeing that form OF-109, Separation Statement, is executed for each departing employee and is forwarded to the Office of Personnel for filing in the employee’s Official Personnel Folder; and advising departing officials ranked Assistant Secretary and above, or Ambassador, to consult with the Department’s Records Officer about depositing in the National Archives or a Presidential archival depository papers that they may have accumulated during their tenure and that may have historical interest.25 Form OF-109 required the employee to certify that “I have surrendered to responsible officials all unclassified documents and papers relating to the official business of the Government acquired by me while in the employ of the Department.”
Other Preservation Guidance: On February 3, 1997, at the beginning of Secretary Albright’s tenure, the Office of the Secretary’s Executive Secretary sent a memorandum to all Assistant Secretaries on “Records Responsibilities and Reviews.” The memorandum referred to a Department Notice on the subject, as well as the Federal Records Act and 5 FAM 443, which covered email records. The memorandum stated that information maintained in email may constitute a record if it meets the statutory definition of a record and stated, “You need not preserve every e-mail message. If a record in electronic media or electronic mail must be preserved, print the files or messages and place the paper record in the appropriate official file; or continue to maintain electronically if feasible.”
No I posted a link to a Email chain those shows Clinton staffers were the ultimate arbiter of what Clintion emails were relevent to the subpoean and which needed to be deleted.
You and every other Hillary supporter apparently think that justice needs to be meted based on Political affiliation.
Uhhh....no. Clinton's aides were complying with a State Department request sent to all former Sec. of State to turn over all work related documents....which they did in December 2014. Clinton didn't get a supoena from congress until March 2015....three months later. If this was a court of law your case would've been dismissed for lack of factual evidence.
Actually the investigation concluded they did not turn over all of the emails. So your entire post is, well, moot.
Actually the investigation concluded they did not turn over all of the emails. So your entire post is, well, moot.
So you CAN read. Why did you ask me to repeat myself? I don't think for one minute that the Secretary of State didn't give some kind of quid pro quo for those donations form a country that is secretly funding ISIS.
https://www.yahoo.com/news/in-leake...d-qatari-governments-fund-isis-221758254.html
Oh, there you go again, reading only the part you want to.
Did I not make this statement?
Oh yeah, I did. She was required to immediately turn over all of her emails when she left the office of Sec State by government regulation. She didn't do that, now did she? There should never had been a need for a subpoena to Clinton if she had turned over the docs like she was supposed to.
What was nefarious about the specific email I responded to?
also,
share with us which emails were found to have been concealed
that investigation you refer to should prove to be an excellent source for your answer should you choose to use it
Sorry that you feel that way...but at least I can take comfort in knowing that the FBI, the law and facts are my side and not yours.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?