MrShangles
DP Veteran
- Joined
- Aug 28, 2014
- Messages
- 1,950
- Reaction score
- 357
Ok now that we got some Hillery defenders, I’ve got a question I hope someone can help explain to me. These subjects are 100% factual.
1- she was under investigation, sorry bout that, she was under a matter and Congress subpoenaed her emails. Am I correct so far? Then she deleted 30,000 of said SUBPOENAED emails before turning them over. So cense she was under a matter, is it legal to destroy SUBPOENAED evidence?
2- now when she was under oath and asked about this she said those emails were only about yoga and weddings, but the recovered deleted SUBPOENAED emails were not about yoga and on top of that some were also classified. So didn’t she lie under oath?
That’s 2 proven facts (Comey said so). Why do democrats not want to charge for those crimes at the minimum?
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
1- she was under investigation, sorry bout that, she was under a matter and Congress subpoenaed her emails. Am I correct so far? Then she deleted 30,000 of said SUBPOENAED emails before turning them over. So cense she was under a matter, is it legal to destroy SUBPOENAED evidence?
2- now when she was under oath and asked about this she said those emails were only about yoga and weddings, but the recovered deleted SUBPOENAED emails were not about yoga and on top of that some were also classified. So didn’t she lie under oath?
That’s 2 proven facts (Comey said so). Why do democrats not want to charge for those crimes at the minimum?
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk