New documents suggest Clinton withheld emails from State Department

[American]

New documents suggest Clinton withheld emails from State Department | Washington Examiner

A new batch of records from Hillary Clinton's tenure as secretary of state indicates the Democratic front-runner may not have handed over all of her work-related emails, as she has repeatedly claimed.
The emails, which were obtained by the conservative group Judicial Watch through a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit, contain conversations that were not included in the trove of roughly 55,000 pages of documents that Clinton's legal team surrendered in late 2014.
Clinton has previously stated under oath that she turned over every work-related record that resided on her private server.
But some of the messages, which stem from former deputy chief of staff Huma Abedin's multiple "clintonemail.com" accounts, were never released by the State Department through a series of montly document dumps that stretched from June 2015 to February of this year.

More of the same from the Clinton camp. Always hiding things.

 

[Taylor]

No doubt when the FBI finally gets around to interviewing her, she'll revert to her standard "I have no specific recollection" defense.

 

[shagg]

No doubt when the FBI finally gets around to interviewing her, she'll revert to her standard "I have no specific recollection" defense.

That may not hold up though, this would warrant a legitimate charge if provable wouldn't it? Purgery at the least, withholding evidence maybe? My legal speak no be that good.

 

[ttwtt78640]

No doubt when the FBI finally gets around to interviewing her, she'll revert to her standard "I have no specific recollection" defense.

It is more likely that HRC will assert that her staff must have simply failed to turn over all "work related" emails as she insists that they were clearly instructed to do. That is the standard excuse used by many high ranking public officials - they simply cannot be held personally accountable for the actions (or inactions) of their bloated staff.

 

[cpwill]

New documents suggest Clinton withheld emails from State Department | Washington Examiner

More of the same from the Clinton camp. Always hiding things.

:shrug: we knew this as soon as she told us she'd "deleted" them (apparently not knowing you don't just "delete" things, you have to do actual data destruction). But it's nice to get confirmation.

 

[MrT]

That may not hold up though, this would warrant a legitimate charge if provable wouldn't it? Purgery at the least, withholding evidence maybe? My legal speak no be that good.

Claiming a lack of memory of the answer to a specific question is not subject to a criminal charge because it is nearly impossible to prove that someone does remember an event. The FBI could attempt to "refresh" her memory by showing her a specific conversation or email, but that's about the extent of it.

 

[MrT]

New documents suggest Clinton withheld emails from State Department | Washington Examiner

More of the same from the Clinton camp. Always hiding things.

The fact that the Washington Examiner, an extremely biased source, is reduced to saying that a new batch of documents "suggests" that Hillary did something that she explicitly admitted to doing (withholding emails) months ago just goes to show how desperate you guys have become at making this a thing.

 

[SenorXm/Sirius]

The fact that the Washington Examiner, an extremely biased source, is reduced to saying that a new batch of documents "suggests" that Hillary did something that she explicitly admitted to doing (withholding emails) months ago just goes to show how desperate you guys have become at making this a thing.

Benghazi!! B-E-N-G-H-A-Z-I.......Screaming that year after year did no good.

So now it's Email... E-M-A-I-L

 

[Anthony60]

Oh no, not Hillary. She wouldn't do that. She has a heart of gold. Why would she ever do that? Of course, she has nothing to hide. Oh, yeah, those damn staffers, they did it.

Is that the way you lefties are spinning this? How embarrassing for Democrats to have this person as their front runner. If that's the best you can put forth, the Democrat party sure is hitting a new low.

And how horrible for America to have someone with this lack of integrity running for President. Makes Trump look good, at least he is not under criminal investigation, and wouldn't be dumb enough to compromise the security of the nation for his own convenience.

But really, it comes down to those that support her. Without you, this pile of excrement couldn't even get elected dog catcher. So thanks again, for dragging this country down, democrats. Another triumph of liberalism! Moving us forward, at all cost.

 

[bubbabgone]

No doubt when the FBI finally gets around to interviewing her, she'll revert to her standard "I have no specific recollection" defense.

HILLARY CLINTON: [looking down, avoiding eye contact, slowly shaking head] "I have no specific recollection, there were no documents marked classified."

 

[Beaudreaux]

New documents suggest Clinton withheld emails from State Department | Washington Examiner


More of the same from the Clinton camp. Always hiding things.

She had a private server for one reason and one reason only - to allow HER to decide what would and would not be subject to public disclosure. She even admitted in the beginning that it took so long to get the first set of emails to the State Department (to comply with the subpoena) because she had to separate what she deemed to be personal emails from "official" emails. No one outside her inner circle had access to any of those other emails. No one outside her inner circle knows what was and was not turned over.

There is no way that anyone can confirm the validity of whether the emails NOT turned over were or were not "official" and therefore subject to the subpoena and the Federal Records Act. By her intentionally mixing personal and public (official) emails on one server under one private email address, Clinton put a firewall between her and the law. That is potentially a criminal act of "Conspiracy to Defraud the Federal Government" for everyone that was involved, which is in my humble opinion just one of the reasons that the guy that set up the email server and email address took the 5th until he was offered immunity for his testimony.

 

[shagg]

Claiming a lack of memory of the answer to a specific question is not subject to a criminal charge because it is nearly impossible to prove that someone does remember an event. The FBI could attempt to "refresh" her memory by showing her a specific conversation or email, but that's about the extent of it.

The scenario I'm imagining is them finding emails she was required to hand over but knowingly didn't. I suppose the knowingly part is hard to prove, but not impossible. She has claimed under oath that she turned over all relevant emails already, proof otherwise is all that's needed for purgery, unless I misunderstand something. IT forensics can be pretty amazing. Recovering a relevant email that was deleted after the date she was informed she had to turn them over, for example.

Even if she can get through any more potential questioning by riding on "I don't remember" it's going to shred her public image. Her IT man, the guy who installed the server, plead the 5th a while back. That's some pretty heavy caliber ammo for Trump even if it doesn't technically cause a legal issue.

 

[jmotivator]

Claiming a lack of memory of the answer to a specific question is not subject to a criminal charge because it is nearly impossible to prove that someone does remember an event. The FBI could attempt to "refresh" her memory by showing her a specific conversation or email, but that's about the extent of it.

Yes, perjury is hard to prove when ignorance is the defense. But this is about far more than potential perjury.

 

[Erod]

Top Secret

Intelligence Information

Private Server

State Department

Which one of those terms seems to not rightly jive with the others?

 

[American]

Yes, perjury is hard to prove when ignorance is the defense. But this is about far more than potential perjury.

It's always about legality with the Left, and never about morality. Clinton leaking secrets via an unsecure server that may jeopardize people's lives means absolutely nothing, as long as it was legal or not illegal.

 

[jmotivator]

It's always about legality with the Left, and never about morality. Clinton leaking secrets via an unsecure server that may jeopardize people's lives means absolutely nothing, as long as it was legal or not illegal.

Well, on that front it is definitely illegal. Her rank stupidity and memory loss only differentiates the charge between gross negligence and a felony.

 

[Anthony60]

It's always about legality with the Left, and never about morality. Clinton leaking secrets via an unsecure server that may jeopardize people's lives means absolutely nothing, as long as it was legal or not illegal.

I think it is more like if they can prove anything. If they don't have enough evidence and she can get away with it, then it's perfectly fine with the left.

 

[jmotivator]

I think it is more like if they can prove anything. If they don't have enough evidence and she can get away with it, then it's perfectly fine with the left.

Which of course makes perfect sense. Liberalism/Progressivism is an ends-justify-means ideology.

 

[notquiteright]

No doubt when the FBI finally gets around to interviewing her, she'll revert to her standard "I have no specific recollection" defense.

That is referred to as the REAGAN defense- most notable during the Iran/Contra debacle... eace

 

[notquiteright]

Which of course makes perfect sense. Liberalism/Progressivism is an ends-justify-means ideology.

I thought 'ends justifies the means' was a hallmark of cut-throat capitalism or-

Hawkish foreign policy where we prop up brutal dictators, topple democracies, engage in illegal arms sales with our 'sworn' enemies, killing civilians acceptable as long as they aren't 'like us', torture suspects, and the best- make up crap to push for war and invading a country... eace

 

[chuckiechan]

They have Huma Abedin ready to take the stand.

She was working for Hillary, State, and a branch of the Clinton Foundation. She is one of the "to, from, and cc" of Hillary's private e mail server. Assuming she had a security clearance at state, the violated it if she sent any classified information through Hillary's server. In addition, it's not clear if she is being interview for the Foundation branch of the investigation, or the e mail branch, but she is up to her neck in both, and has not received immunity.

So she could be close to becoming indictment #1 unless she cooperates.

 

[American]

Which of course makes perfect sense. Liberalism/Progressivism is an ends-justify-means ideology.

Hitler and Stalin thought the same thing.

 

[Skeptic Bob]

It is more likely that HRC will assert that her staff must have simply failed to turn over all "work related" emails as she insists that they were clearly instructed to do. That is the standard excuse used by many high ranking public officials - they simply cannot be held personally accountable for the actions (or inactions) of their bloated staff.

As despicable as I find Trump, loyalty to his subordinates does seem to be one of the areas in which he is better than Clinton.

 

[Fishking]

Benghazi!! B-E-N-G-H-A-Z-I.......Screaming that year after year did no good.

So now it's Email... E-M-A-I-L

Of course it didn't do any good. She could slaughter a baby and suck the marrow out of it's bones and there'd a be a whole group of like-minded people, such as yourself, that would cover for her and she never get held accountable for it.

 

[SenorXm/Sirius]

Of course it didn't do any good. She could slaughter a baby and suck the marrow out of it's bones and there'd a be a whole group of like-minded people, such as yourself, that would cover for her and she never get held accountable for it.

Nah, a couple of your own Republicans on that committee flat out admitted there was nothing there and said that the headings were just about politics. Your own politicians came out and finally admitted it.

It didn't do any good because there was nothing there.