• Please read the Announcement concerning missing posts from 10/8/25-10/15/25.
  • This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Judge Sullivan Drops a Bomb on Hillary, Huma, and Mills

That's been the problem with the home server from the start. There's simply no way Hillary can or would dare to account for them all. It's just not possible, and even the best of advisors and attorneys can't prevent what's already happened - and that happened when she chose to be smarter than everybody else by using that damn thing to start with. There's bound to be hundreds of emails which pertain to the Clinton Foundation in that mess she deleted, too. That, Benghazi, you have to know it's in there. Will it be uncovered? Probably not fully or even partially, but as you say, it only takes one. That's her problem, and it's a big one that the media is loathe to cover unless it's so big it can't be ignored.

You just gave me a thought. What if Hillary's attorneys went through ALL of the accounts on the server? They had access to it. It is a lot of emails to go through and the chances of missing an email would be pretty good but it would implicate Kendall, Hillary's attorney or the person that did the clean up. She had five accounts of her own set up on that server. I bet they didn't wipe the whole thing. I bet there is a copy somewhere of that hard drive. They had too much on that server from the State Department, leaders from other countries, the Clinton Foundation. I bet this could really blow up and put some folks in prison. I agree with you on the media. It could get to big for them to contain however. The problem is the DOJ is doing every ****ing thing they can do to ignore the situation. That ups the anti on the Dems losing this election. Without a DOJ that is complicit and corrupt they can't continue to stonewall actual investigations. If they lose the election they lose the DOJ. All bets are off at that point.
 
Good job...you got someone to respond to your deflection and now you are going to run with it. Anything to not talk about Hillary, eh?

He knows everything he says is false and misleading. It is like a fly buzzing around a turd. More annoying than anything.
 
A home server is devious from the start, from the surface, it belies accountability. I'll give her a pass if the lesson learned is not to allow it in the future. This is no different then mixing business and personal finances, these things need to be kept seperate.

No, she doesn't get any passes. I was really low level. Just a worker bee and I had it drilled into me about how to handle classified documents. We weren't even allowed to use thumb drives or burn CDs for anything. She was the freaking Secretary of State who works hand in hand with the CIA. No chances to plead stupidity on this one. Then there is the conflict of interest aspect. That is another one that they drill into our heads. Again, Secretary of State doesn't get a pass to be stupid on this one either.
 
Oh really? Could have fooled me by repeatedly chanting the bogus and thoroughly debunked claims of Iraq's active WMD development and Iraq's association with Al Qaeda.

Full text: Bush's speech | US news | The Guardian

"Intelligence gathered by this and other governments leaves no doubt that the Iraq regime continues to possess and conceal some of the most lethal weapons ever devised."

Absolutely false. And we knew better, then.

Are you trying to derail this thread?
 
He knows everything he says is false and misleading. It is like a fly buzzing around a turd. More annoying than anything.

Bahaha oh the irony!

Give me a break. Your case is a bunch of weak speculation which is why Hillary will likely get off just like her husband. Zing!
 
Good job...you got someone to respond to your deflection and now you are going to run with it. Anything to not talk about Hillary, eh?

Deflection?

Her predecessor did exactly the same thing she did. Why aren't you clamoring for his emails?

Especially since, as i cited before, there are real, compelling reasons to investigate how the previous administration was so poorly informed, and misled the whole country to compel us to war.
 
Bahaha oh the irony!

Give me a break. Your case is a bunch of weak speculation which is why Hillary will likely get off just like her husband. Zing!

There is at least one judge who is willing to hold some feet to the fire, it appears. I'm guessing that judge thinks there is a case here that ISN'T so weak.
 
Deflection?

Her predecessor did exactly the same thing she did. Why aren't you clamoring for his emails?

Especially since, as i cited before, there are real, compelling reasons to investigate how the previous administration was so poorly informed, and misled the whole country to compel us to war.

Who cares what her predecessor did? And do you think Hillary can avoid things by saying, "but Bush did it, too!!"?

Keep on deflecting...the only thing that'll get you is less credibility.
 
There is at least one judge who is willing to hold some feet to the fire, it appears. I'm guessing that judge thinks there is a case here that ISN'T so weak.

I find it curious that he ADMITS that he wants Hillary to "get off just like her husband". I think I just found a quote for my sig. He admitted everything he has said is a lie.

Today has been a good day.
 
Last edited:
Her predecessor did the exact same thing. Aren't you all giving him a pass already?

Of course, Hillary never did anything as vindictive as lie to the world to compel the United States to war, but she did ...
...
Send emails and ... didn't give them all to me yet. That's pretty bad. Right?

Used a private (in home?) server and refused to turn over its contents to honor FOIA requests?
 
Who cares what her predecessor did? And do you think Hillary can avoid things by saying, "but Bush did it, too!!"?

Keep on deflecting...the only thing that'll get you is less credibility.

Thanks, I got a new sig. I owe you one.
 
Used a private (in home?) server and refused to turn over its contents to honor FOIA requests?

Actually the server is hers but the documents (emails) belong to the US Government. No way she can refuse anything.
 
There is at least one judge who is willing to hold some feet to the fire, it appears. I'm guessing that judge thinks there is a case here that ISN'T so weak.

Tell me, how many years and how many investigations have gone by without a single conviction? Since republicans have been beating the war drums over a bunch of hot air the whole time, how surprising is it that someone goes through another step in the procedure to investigate them?

You all seem to conclude she's guilty on all counts without so much as a trial. Great objectivity!

Who cares what her predecessor did? And do you think Hillary can avoid things by saying, "but Bush did it, too!!"?

Keep on deflecting...the only thing that'll get you is less credibility.

Deflecting? How is it not relevant ...? If you were to argue President Bush 2's economic policies were a disaster, could you really say that President Obama or President Clintons policies are "off limits" to make any related statement?

I find it curious that he ADMITS that he wants Hillary to "get off just like her husband". I think I just found a quote for my sig. He admitted everything he has said is a lie.

Getting off a criminal conviction doesn't mean you're guilty. In fact, it means the court found you not guilty.

I already admitted she's guilty. She's absolutely guilty. Guilty of being a democrat that blows every republican presidential candidate out of the water.

Used a private (in home?) server and refused to turn over its contents to honor FOIA requests?

No, i'm sure his uses of a personal email address were nowhere nearly so secure.
 
Actually the server is hers but the documents (emails) belong to the US Government. No way she can refuse anything.

What? She has done just that (so far). She insisted that she had no classified e-mail content (yet we are are now told that was untrue) and that she has turned over all (non personal) e-mails. The fact that no "official" e-mails are said to exist for some long periods of her service (months?) is beyond belief.

What I do not understand is why nobody compares e-mails received from her server (which were sent to gov't server using state department personnel) to see if the set that she did turn over was incomplete. If even one (non-personal) e-mail sent from her server is found in one of those gov't in-boxes that she has not forwarded then she should be jailed.
 
Tell me, how many years and how many investigations have gone by without a single conviction? Since republicans have been beating the war drums over a bunch of hot air the whole time, how surprising is it that someone goes through another step in the procedure to investigate them?

You all seem to conclude she's guilty on all counts without so much as a trial. Great objectivity!



Deflecting? How is it not relevant ...? If you were to argue President Bush 2's economic policies were a disaster, could you really say that President Obama or President Clintons policies are "off limits" to make any related statement?



Getting off a criminal conviction doesn't mean you're guilty. In fact, it means the court found you not guilty.

I already admitted she's guilty. She's absolutely guilty. Guilty of being a democrat that blows every republican presidential candidate out of the water.



No, i'm sure his uses of a personal email address were nowhere nearly so secure.

LOL!!!

And...in this whole post, you only mention Hillary once...to admit she's guilty. The rest is just you continuing your deflection to off-topic crap.

Keep digging, dude...your credibility is virtually invisible now.
 
What? She has done just that (so far). She insisted that she had no classified e-mail content (yet we are are now told that was untrue) and that she has turned over all (non personal) e-mails. The fact that no "official" e-mails are said to exist for some long periods of her service (months?) is beyond belief.

What I do not understand is why nobody compares e-mails received from her server (which were sent to gov't server using state department personnel) to see if the set that she did turn over was incomplete. If even one (non-personal) e-mail sent from her server is found in one of those gov't in-boxes that she has not forwarded then she should be jailed.

Let me catch you up. This is going to take a bit since I have to hunt up the info again but it will be worth the wait.
 
Tell me, how many years and how many investigations have gone by without a single conviction? Since republicans have been beating the war drums over a bunch of hot air the whole time, how surprising is it that someone goes through another step in the procedure to investigate them?

You all seem to conclude she's guilty on all counts without so much as a trial. Great objectivity!



Deflecting? How is it not relevant ...? If you were to argue President Bush 2's economic policies were a disaster, could you really say that President Obama or President Clintons policies are "off limits" to make any related statement?



Getting off a criminal conviction doesn't mean you're guilty. In fact, it means the court found you not guilty.

I already admitted she's guilty. She's absolutely guilty. Guilty of being a democrat that blows every republican presidential candidate out of the water.



No, i'm sure his uses of a personal email address were nowhere nearly so secure.

I got a sig out of it. You admitted that you were misleading and obfuscating. Thanks, gonna go back to counting your posts as insignificant again.
 
What? She has done just that (so far). She insisted that she had no classified e-mail content (yet we are are now told that was untrue) and that she has turned over all (non personal) e-mails. The fact that no "official" e-mails are said to exist for some long periods of her service (months?) is beyond belief.

What I do not understand is why nobody compares e-mails received from her server (which were sent to gov't server using state department personnel) to see if the set that she did turn over was incomplete. If even one (non-personal) e-mail sent from her server is found in one of those gov't in-boxes that she has not forwarded then she should be jailed.

Judge wants Clinton Certification on Emails
Judge wants Clinton certification on emails - POLITICO

A federal judge has ordered the State Department to ask Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton to certify under penalty of perjury that she has turned over some of the work-related emails she kept on a private server during the four years she served as secretary of state.

U.S. District Court Judge Emmet Sullivan issued the order Friday in connection with a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit the conservative group Judicial Watch filed in 2013 seeking records about the employment status of Clinton aide Huma Abedin, who worked as Clinton's deputy chief of staff but later transferred to a part-time job as a so-called "special government employee."

The State Department told Judicial Watch last year that all records about the arrangement had been disclosed, but after Clinton's use of a private email account for official business was revealed earlier this year, Judicial Watch moved to reopen the lawsuit. Abedin was also revealed to have used an account on the same server.

Additional information added because of inaccuracies in both articles.

Both articles are in conflict with the actual order. The Politico is incorrect. "that she has turned over some of the work-related emails she kept on a private server during the four years she served as secretary of state." The word "some" isn't accurate. The judge referred to all emails.

In the second article it states in the headline that the judge orders "Judge Orders Hillary Clinton to Answer for ‘Home-Brew’ Server". The order does not order Clinton to do anything. It orders the State Department to "request that the above named individuals confirm, under penalty of perjury, that they have produced all responsive information that was or is in their possession as a result of their employment at the State Department."

Judge Orders Hillary Clinton to Answer for ‘Home-Brew’ Server
Judge Orders Hillary Clinton to Answer for 'Home-Brew' Server - The Gateway Pundit

Actual order:
As agreed by the parties at the July 31, 2015 status hearing, the Government shall produce a copy of the letters sent by the State Department to Mrs. Hillary Clinton, Ms. Huma Abedin and Ms. Cheryl Mills regarding the collection of government records in their possession.

These communications shall be posted on the docket forthwith. The Government has also agreed to share with Plaintiff’s counsel the responses sent by Mrs. Clinton, Ms. Abedin and Ms. Mills. These communications shall also be posted on the docket forthwith.

In addition, as related to Judicial Watch’s FOIA requests in this case, the Government is HEREBY ORDERED to:

(1) identify any and all servers, accounts, hard drives, or other devices currently in the possession or control of the State Department or otherwise that may contain responsive information;
(2) request that the above named individuals confirm, under penalty of perjury, that they have produced all responsive information that was or is in their possession as a result of their employment at the State Department. If all such information has not yet been produced, the Government shall request the above named individuals produce the information forthwith; and
(3) request that the above named individuals describe, under penalty of perjury, the extent to which Ms. Abedin and Ms. Mills used Mrs. Clinton’s email server to conduct official government business.

The Government shall inform the Court of the status of its compliance with this Order no later than August 7, 2015, including any response received from Mrs. Clinton, Ms. Abedin and Ms. Mills. Signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on July 31, 2015.”
 
What? She has done just that (so far). She insisted that she had no classified e-mail content (yet we are are now told that was untrue) and that she has turned over all (non personal) e-mails. The fact that no "official" e-mails are said to exist for some long periods of her service (months?) is beyond belief.

What I do not understand is why nobody compares e-mails received from her server (which were sent to gov't server using state department personnel) to see if the set that she did turn over was incomplete. If even one (non-personal) e-mail sent from her server is found in one of those gov't in-boxes that she has not forwarded then she should be jailed.

Judicial Watch said that Hillary is REQUIRED to do what the order says. I don't know what their basis is but their attorneys are pretty good and they usually get it right legally.

From the order:
"(2) request that the above named individuals confirm, under penalty of perjury, that they have produced all responsive information that was or is in their possession as a result of their employment at the State Department. If all such information has not yet been produced, the Government shall request the above named individuals produce the information forthwith"

I have been thinking. If Hillary produces a statement following the instructions above she automatically perjures herself. She has stated that she has turned over all of the documents that had anything to do with her job as Secretary of State but has not made that statement under oath. We know her statement is not accurate. Sidney Blumenthal has turned in 5 emails that came from her that aren't included in the emails she has given to the State Department. If she made this statement under oath she it would be erroneous because she didn't include the emails that Blumenthal produced.

The State Department just received 20 boxes of printed emails from Phillip Reines. We don't know if there are any emails that will be found in his batch that aren't included in the emails that Hillary turned in. I am sure there will be a FOIA for those emails, if it isn't already covered in one of the existing FOIA suits.
 
Judicial Watch said that Hillary is REQUIRED to do what the order says. I don't know what their basis is but their attorneys are pretty good and they usually get it right legally.

From the order:
"(2) request that the above named individuals confirm, under penalty of perjury, that they have produced all responsive information that was or is in their possession as a result of their employment at the State Department. If all such information has not yet been produced, the Government shall request the above named individuals produce the information forthwith"

I have been thinking. If Hillary produces a statement following the instructions above she automatically perjures herself. She has stated that she has turned over all of the documents that had anything to do with her job as Secretary of State but has not made that statement under oath. We know her statement is not accurate. Sidney Blumenthal has turned in 5 emails that came from her that aren't included in the emails she has given to the State Department. If she made this statement under oath she it would be erroneous because she didn't include the emails that Blumenthal produced.

The State Department just received 20 boxes of printed emails from Phillip Reines. We don't know if there are any emails that will be found in his batch that aren't included in the emails that Hillary turned in. I am sure there will be a FOIA for those emails, if it isn't already covered in one of the existing FOIA suits.

The (bolded above) fact is what I am so surprised has not occurred on a much wider scale, and much earlier. All HRC did by producing only printed copies of her e-mails was to slow down the process of comparing them. What remains to be seen is if she will be prosecuted for perjury once she states that she did, in fact, turn over all e-mails. I suspect that the only HRC defense plan possible is to blame "staff" for not having been more careful to include all "non-personal" e-mails. HRC can (and likely will) assert that she ordered "staff" to comply but they, not her, failed to completely comply.
 
Judicial Watch said that Hillary is REQUIRED to do what the order says. I don't know what their basis is but their attorneys are pretty good and they usually get it right legally.

From the order:
"(2) request that the above named individuals confirm, under penalty of perjury, that they have produced all responsive information that was or is in their possession as a result of their employment at the State Department. If all such information has not yet been produced, the Government shall request the above named individuals produce the information forthwith"

I have been thinking. If Hillary produces a statement following the instructions above she automatically perjures herself. She has stated that she has turned over all of the documents that had anything to do with her job as Secretary of State but has not made that statement under oath. We know her statement is not accurate. Sidney Blumenthal has turned in 5 emails that came from her that aren't included in the emails she has given to the State Department. If she made this statement under oath she it would be erroneous because she didn't include the emails that Blumenthal produced.

The State Department just received 20 boxes of printed emails from Phillip Reines. We don't know if there are any emails that will be found in his batch that aren't included in the emails that Hillary turned in. I am sure there will be a FOIA for those emails, if it isn't already covered in one of the existing FOIA suits.

Except that Sidney didn't work for the state department.

You guys keep talking like you have a case. The law says she must keep records. She submitted records. It is not up to you to say "but there's a 2 month gap with no emails on Libya," and conclude that she's guilty of something.

See, the reason you keep coming up with extravagant speculations to support her having broken some law, is because this is a partisan witch hunt.
 
anyone still willing to vote for this women has mental issues.
why in your right mind would vote for them?

they are some of the most corrupt people in Washington.
if this is the best that the democratic party has they are doomed.

I think a perjury charge would disqualify her from presidency.
it was enough to get her husband impeached.
 
Except that Sidney didn't work for the state department.

You guys keep talking like you have a case. The law says she must keep records. She submitted records. It is not up to you to say "but there's a 2 month gap with no emails on Libya," and conclude that she's guilty of something.

See, the reason you keep coming up with extravagant speculations to support her having broken some law, is because this is a partisan witch hunt.

if she says that she turned over all the documents but they find that documents were removed and deleted then that is perjury.
she didn't hand over all the documents.

that is why this email server needs to be seized and gone over to find out what was deleted and what wasn't deleted and everything else.
she is stonewalling the courts because she knows she is guilty as all get out for using private email server to conduct state business with.

it isn't a partisan witch hunt she broke the law or do you think she gets to operate other another set of laws because she is a Clinton?
two sets of laws? one for us poor folk and one for the rich?
 
Except that Sidney didn't work for the state department.

It doesn't matter that he didn't work for the State Department...in fact, if she gave HIM classified information then it's even worse since he doesn't have any kind of clearance.

You guys keep talking like you have a case. The law says she must keep records. She submitted records. It is not up to you to say "but there's a 2 month gap with no emails on Libya," and conclude that she's guilty of something.

I don't know what this "case" you are talking about is. Right now, there are only "questions".

Hillary has done and said things that are inconsistent with facts and that could point to illegal actions and lies. Now, nobody really knows if she is "guilty of something", but everything she's been doing and saying indicate that

1) It is likely she is "guilty of something" and

2) she is doing her damnest to cover things up.

See, the reason you keep coming up with extravagant speculations to support her having broken some law, is because this is a partisan witch hunt.

No witch hunt going on...just a desire for justice. And, despite your rhetoric, there are no "extravagant" speculations...only glaring holes in her story and efforts on her part to avoid turning over evidence and material requested by Congress, the courts and citizens.

Let's face it...unlike you, who are happy to accept everything she does and says without question, there are discerning people who see the holes and the efforts and want to find out the facts. One of those people is Judge Sullivan.
 
Last edited:
A home server is devious from the start, from the surface, it belies accountability. I'll give her a pass if the lesson learned is not to allow it in the future. This is no different then mixing business and personal finances, these things need to be kept seperate.

She did this precisely to avoid any accountability and crapped all over national security issues for her own convenience. Furthermore, she assigned herself to determine exactly what on that server would be viewed by even the very government she worked for. Beyond that, there's every appearance that Hillary sold future government access for paid speaking gigs for Bill and donations to the Foundation, that foundation having doubtful charitable interests. That rotten smell surrounding her isn't hidden by the perfume.
 
Back
Top Bottom