No, the congress is duty bound to pursue. I just don't see them getting her on this. She's such an experienced crook she'll likely only be caught out by history after she's gone, if then.
Hillary Clinton is simply not to be trusted or believed. Her history of lies, deceptions and amnesia are too long to trust her.
I suggest Hillary release all her emails from her server to the Benghazi Committee, and to the State Dept. Personal and otherwise. Everything. She skirted the system, she is untrustworthy... as far as I'm concerned that was the default SoS server... and the contents are our property.
Then the posts in this thread by yourself and others are tantamount to baseless bitching and moaning. Here's what I'm hearing:
1)"Release your emails!"
2)"But if you do, don't doctor them!"
3)"And if do release them and we don't see what we want to see, you deleted them!"
So I ask, "What do you want?"
Answer: "Release your emails!"
And around and around and around it goes. Honestly, this has got to be one of the only "scandals" I've seen where lack of evidence is evidence of guilt.
Obama would never been elected had it not been the press running cover. The defining moment of it was Joe the Plumber asking a question, letting Obama run his mouth uninterrupted, and in the process he revealed his lean was as many of us knew... socialist in nature... "spread the wealth around".
Then the full force of the Obama Media attacked Joe.
Hillary is shrill, corrupt, and Bill ... who pals with pedofiles ... well... the combined decades of abuse has taken its toll. The Dem power holders obviously seem to want to dump her... this is their excuse.
Then the posts in this thread by yourself and others are tantamount to baseless bitching and moaning. Here's what I'm hearing:
1)"Release your emails!"
2)"But if you do, don't doctor them!"
3)"And if do release them and we don't see what we want to see, you deleted them!"
So I ask, "What do you want?"
Answer: "Release your emails!"
And around and around and around it goes. Honestly, this has got to be one of the only "scandals" I've seen where lack of evidence is evidence of guilt.
It certainly looks like most of the leaders of the Democratic Party think she is a liability. Many married women do not like or trust her for tolerating her husband's womanizing as she did, and as you say, she is shrill and corrupt. She may well have committed a felony by using these private e-mails the way she did. There is also the fact that at her inauguration she would be the oldest president in U.S. history, older than Ronald Reagan was. And a related problem is the suspicion that her health is not good. What was the story, for example, with her fainting, her hospitalization, and the odd eyeglasses she wore afterwards?
Hey, you know what? Tough S***! This is why we have secured, archived federal servers and chain of custody protocols in place. She broke the trust, no use whining that people don't trust her.
It's now clear that you don't have any evidence that they were "scrubbed". Stop wasting precious server space by replying with your baseless claims.
I'd rather read Bill's emails. Or even better an internet history report. :lol: Now that would be entertaining.
You're barking up the wrong tree. I don't give two ****s if she releases her emails. They're not going to contain anything probative anyway. What I do care about was that she should be on the hook for going private with the emails in the first place.
Hillary Clinton is simply not to be trusted or believed. Her history of lies, deceptions and amnesia are too long to trust her.
I suggest Hillary release all her emails from her server to the Benghazi Committee, and to the State Dept. Personal and otherwise. Everything. She skirted the system, she is untrustworthy... as far as I'm concerned that was the default SoS server... and the contents are our property.
Then the posts in this thread by yourself and others are tantamount to baseless bitching and moaning. Here's what I'm hearing:
1)"Release your emails!"
2)"But if you do, don't doctor them!"
3)"And if do release them and we don't see what we want to see, you deleted them!"
So I ask, "What do you want?"
Answer: "Release your emails!"
And around and around and around it goes. Honestly, this has got to be one of the only "scandals" I've seen where lack of evidence is evidence of guilt.
And you have no evidence that they weren't scrubbed.
Given that behavioral pattern of the person in question, I think it legitimately cautious to believe that they were scrubbed, until proven otherwise.
So the DoJ issues a warrant, grabs the servers where her private email are housed and allows the NSA to peruse them. So simply yet that wouldn't happen in a million years. The Clintons live by their own rules, not the rules and laws of peons like the rest of America.
So the DoJ issues a warrant, grabs the servers where her private email are housed and allows the NSA to peruse them. So simply yet that wouldn't happen in a million years. The Clintons live by their own rules, not the rules and laws of peons like the rest of America.
And you have no evidence that they weren't scrubbed.
Given that behavioral pattern of the person in question, I think it legitimately cautious to believe that they were scrubbed, until proven otherwise.
I'm not claiming that they weren't. I'm asking for evidence that they were after clowboy claimed they were.
I'm not into logical fallacies.
Government owned documents were kept outside of the prescribed, government controlled and managed storage facility.
It is fair and prudent to not trust the documents as complete and unaltered until proven to be complete and unaltered - if possible.
Yet you call this prudent course of action and stance a logical fallacy? I'm failing to see your logic at doing so. Please explain in detail.
And there in lies the significant problem with her becoming president. We've already had one administration with a liar in chief, why would we want another?
Not evidence that they were scrubbed or that they weren't scrubbed. Try harder.
What is fair and prudent is irrelevant to this discussion. A claim was made, evidence was asked to substantiate it. No evidence was provided one way or another by the person who made the claim.
It's a logical fallacy because you have no evidence of anything one way or another but you're assuming that it went towards the situation that best benefits your preferred narrative. If you have evidence, bring it forward, if not, then you have nothing to substantiate the claim that they were "scrubbed".
Because deep down (and I'm only speculating here) half the country LIKES being lied to.
Because deep down (and I'm only speculating here) half the country LIKES being lied to.
nah...
It's about 47%
The mere fact that they were stored outside of the prescribed, government controlled and managed storage facility
You do know that she would have been allowed to use her personal email for emergencies, right? So even if she had used a state department email address for the bulk of her communications, would you have accused her of using her personal email for all the nefarious stuff?
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?