• 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!

New documents suggest Clinton withheld emails from State Department

American

Trump Grump Whisperer
DP Veteran
Monthly Donator
Joined
Mar 11, 2006
Messages
96,461
Reaction score
33,780
Location
Western Virginia
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
New documents suggest Clinton withheld emails from State Department | Washington Examiner

More of the same from the Clinton camp. Always hiding things.
 
No doubt when the FBI finally gets around to interviewing her, she'll revert to her standard "I have no specific recollection" defense.
 
Taylor said:
No doubt when the FBI finally gets around to interviewing her, she'll revert to her standard "I have no specific recollection" defense.
Click to expand...

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

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.
 
shagg said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 

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

HILLARY CLINTON: [looking down, avoiding eye contact, slowly shaking head] "I have no specific recollection, there were no documents marked classified."
 
American said:
New documents suggest Clinton withheld emails from State Department | Washington Examiner


More of the same from the Clinton camp. Always hiding things.
Click to expand...

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.
 

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.
 
Last edited:

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

Intelligence Information

Private Server

State Department

Which one of those terms seems to not rightly jive with the others?
 
jmotivator said:
Yes, perjury is hard to prove when ignorance is the defense. But this is about far more than potential perjury.
Click to expand...

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.
 
American said:
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.
Click to expand...

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

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.
 
Anthony60 said:
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.
Click to expand...

Which of course makes perfect sense. Liberalism/Progressivism is an ends-justify-means ideology.
 
Taylor said:
No doubt when the FBI finally gets around to interviewing her, she'll revert to her standard "I have no specific recollection" defense.
Click to expand...

That is referred to as the REAGAN defense- most notable during the Iran/Contra debacle... eace
 
jmotivator said:
Which of course makes perfect sense. Liberalism/Progressivism is an ends-justify-means ideology.
Click to expand...

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
 
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.
 

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.
 
SenorXm/Sirius said:
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
Click to expand...

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.
 
Fishking said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register
Cookies are required to use this site. You must accept them to continue using the site. Learn more…