Clinton to hand over email server to FBI

[Virge_]

You're out of your fucking mind. Go read up on Iran-Contra, Watergate, or COINTELPRO, and see what a real scandal is.

Or link me to all your flipping out and conniption fits when the Bush Administration did the same goddamn thing.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bush_White_House_e-mail_controversy

Why are you trying to distract us from and diffuse a modern issue with an archived legacy scenario that does not result in the POI running for president in 2016?

How is it you cannot understand the scale of relevance? How is it you don't see that one of these is something that effects our FUTURE, which we can do something about by acting NOW, vs. shit from ten years ago completely removed from our control?

Are you being paid to try and convince the rest of us this nonsense?

 

[Blackjack200]

Why are you trying to distract us from and diffuse a modern issue with an archived legacy scenario that does not result in the POI running for president in 2016?

How is it you cannot understand the scale of relevance? How is it you don't see that one of these is something that effects our FUTURE, which we can do something about by acting NOW, vs. shit from ten years ago completely removed from our control?

Are you being paid to try and convince the rest of us this nonsense?

Because I'm establishing that you're a dishonest, cynical hack that gives not a shit about Federal Records or FOIA, but are instead desperate to smear Clinton. So let's see where you criticized Bush for doing the same thing. Fucking hack.

 

[Virge_]

Because I'm establishing that you're a dishonest, cynical hack that gives not a shit about Federal Records or FOIA, but are instead desperate to smear Clinton. So let's see where you criticized Bush for doing the same thing. Fucking hack.

This is a hilarious argument. Dishonest? Please use empirical evidence to make one valid argument as to my honesty. Until then, I'm just going to laugh at you using absolutes so poorly. You must be getting frustrated if this is all you can spew.

I have not stated anything about Bush or any other point you've tried to use because they are irrelevant to this scenario. Not sure why you keep grasping for straws. I am discussing Clinton, in a thread with Clinton's name in the very subject line no less (in case you missed it..), and if you have a specific question for comparison you'd like my opinion on then perhaps you should just ask it and I will happily chime in with my opinion for your review.

Currently it just appears like you're trying to distract, which is cute but isn't going to work.

 

[bshole]

Are you serious? It surfaced as a result of the Benghazi investigations, which are still going on. It is the most transparently partisan bullshit imaginable. It turns out if you dig into someone's shit for 3 years, eventually you will find something they did wrong.

Are you fucking kidding? Jesus they did it again! An investigation of Whitewater became a search of a cum stained dress. Using the same playbook, an investigation of something patently ridiculous (Benghazi) becomes a search of her private server. I am impressed beyong comprehension at how good the Republicans are at this shit. Unfortunately even though their actions were evil and partisan in getting this unwarranted seach, it appears that Clinton did in fact engage in behaviour that was illegal.

How in the fuck did Republicans manage this while the Democrats were completely unable to get a search of Bush/Cheney's little group of felons private servers? Good christ, there was real and lasting damage done by that band of traitors. That Clinton could actually go to jail while those cretins walk around free makes the bile rise in my throat.

 

[Blackjack200]

This is a hilarious argument.

I have not stated anything about Bush or any other point you've tried to use because they are irrelevant to this scenario. Not sure why you keep grasping for straws. I am discussing Clinton, and if you have a very specific question for comparison you'd like my opinion on, perhaps you should just ask it.

Currently it just appears like you're trying to distract, which is cute but isn't going to work.

Oh really? The Bush Administration using a private email server and deleting 22 million emails is not relevant to this situation?

 

[Virge_]

Oh really? The Bush Administration using a private email server and deleting 22 million emails is not relevant to this situation?

Once again, do you have a specific question you'd like me to try and answer?

Otherwise, I can do this, too. Hitler once didn't comply with judges orders, what is your opinion on Hillary's similarity to Hitler?

Do you see how stupid that is, yet?

 

[Blackjack200]

Are you fucking kidding? Jesus they did it again! An investigation of Whitewater became a search of a cum stained dress. Using the same playbook, an investigation of something patently ridiculous (Benghazi) becomes a search of her private server. I am impressed beyong comprehension at how good the Republicans are at this shit. Unfortunately even though their actions were evil and partisan in getting this unwarranted seach, it appears that Clinton did in fact engage in behaviour that was illegal.

How in the fuck did Republicans manage this while the Democrats were completely unable to get a search of Bush/Cheney's little group of felons private servers? Good christ, there was real and lasting damage done by that band of traitors. That Clinton could actually go to jail while those cretins walk around free makes the bile rise in my throat.

Clinton is not going to jail because what she did was not illegal. Not following communications protocols is not the same thing as violating the law. If it was, she would have been arrested by now.

 

[Blackjack200]

Once again, do you have a specific question you'd like me to try and answer?

Otherwise, I can do this, too. Hitler once didn't comply with judges orders, what is your opinion on Hillary's similarity to Hitler?

Do you see how stupid that is, yet?

No, I think you've said enough.

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

Already gave you all the info you need. Are you saying that you have used your independent legal experience to come to a dramatically different conclusion than the lawyers used for that article? If so, what basis do you have for this?

No...you evaded and never provided the information I asked for. Please quote where the NPR article directly addresses the point I've made...that's it's illegal to destroy government records.

 

[fskimospy]

No...you evaded and never provided the information I asked for. Please quote where the NPR article directly addresses the point I've made...that's it's illegal to destroy government records.

No, I simply provided you with a comprehensive look at the legal issue instead of wading into your armchair lawyering. The question is not whether or not it is illegal to destroy government records (it isn't), it is whether or not the destruction of records is carried out in compliance with the law, and in this case if Hillary's conduct violated the law.

In the opinion of the people cited in NPR's fact check, her conduct was not illegal. You have apparently utilized some form of personal legal knowledge or the knowledge of an outside source to come to a dramatically different legal conclusion, and so I'm interested to know what the basis for it is. Stop evading and let us all know!

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

No, I simply provided you with a comprehensive look at the legal issue instead of wading into your armchair lawyering. The question is not whether or not it is illegal to destroy government records (it isn't), it is whether or not the destruction of records is carried out in compliance with the law, and in this case if Hillary's conduct violated the law.

In the opinion of the people cited in NPR's fact check, her conduct was not illegal. You have apparently utilized some form of personal legal knowledge or the knowledge of an outside source to come to a dramatically different legal conclusion, and so I'm interested to know what the basis for it is. Stop evading and let us all know!

The NPR article you cited didn't address the illegality of a person independently and unilaterally destroying government records. Such an easy thing to quote, yet you can't....and why would that be? BECAUSE IT'S NOT ADDRESSED.

 

[fskimospy]

The NPR article you cited didn't address the illegality of a person independently and unilaterally destroying government records. Such an easy thing to quote, yet you can't....and why would that be? BECAUSE IT'S NOT ADDRESSED.

You're right, whether she violated ANY PART OF THE LAW is addressed though, which is quite a bit more important, no?.

So again, where's your superior legal reasoning coming from?

 

[cabri]

Oh really? The Bush Administration using a private email server and deleting 22 million emails is not relevant to this situation?

Are you talking about Clinton or Bush?

You're right, whether she violated ANY PART OF THE LAW is addressed though, which is quite a bit more important, no?.

So again, where's your superior legal reasoning coming from?

Did she violate the Federal Records by destroying government documents improperly?

 

[Blackjack200]

Are you talking about Clinton or Bush?

I'm talking about credibility.

 

[Jaskalas]

Number of Clinton emails flagged for classified info hits 300 — and growing...
So she conducted all of her work on her private, insecure, server.

 

[cabri]

So you are wanting to place Clinton on the same pedestal that you have Bush.

Having the server is not the issue; the justification may be based on the hypocrisy that she provided as an explanation.

However, that I can accept as a personal preference, no matter the actual implementation. At the time, the rules allowed her wiggle room; did she do it because or in-spite of; we will never know.

Her handling of the information afterwards, denials, stalling, fabrication, security, and destruction is the concern.

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

You're right, whether she violated ANY PART OF THE LAW is addressed though, which is quite a bit more important, no?.

So again, where's your superior legal reasoning coming from?

Is it really that hard for you to acknowledge that the NPR article did NOT address the illegality of an individual unilaterally destroying government documents? Really?

 

[PokerGuy]

This continues to get bigger, more details coming out each day. As is usually the case, the coverup is worse than the crime. Had she just come out and said "That was not a good idea, I followed some bad advice at the time, just like my predecessors had", it would have all gone away by now. The arrogance and hubris is what is going to hurt her candidacy. Meanwhile hildabeast is going around making jokes about deleting messages. That is exactly what arrogance and hubris looks like.

 

[fskimospy]

Is it really that hard for you to acknowledge that the NPR article did NOT address the illegality of an individual unilaterally destroying government documents? Really?

I'm not sure what the confusion is here. The NPR article concluded she didn't violate any part of the law, which would include the sections you quoted originally.

What you're basically saying is "did your football team score any points in the first quarter?" My response was "They didn't score any points for the whole game". I don't know why you're coming back with "YEAH BUT WHAT ABOUT THE FIRST QUARTER, STOP EVADING".

Again, what is your source for your legal opinion?

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

This continues to get bigger, more details coming out each day. As is usually the case, the coverup is worse than the crime. Had she just come out and said "That was not a good idea, I followed some bad advice at the time, just like my predecessors had", it would have all gone away by now. The arrogance and hubris is what is going to hurt her candidacy. Meanwhile hildabeast is going around making jokes about deleting messages. That is exactly what arrogance and hubris looks like.

I'm hoping she skates on this issue and gets the nomination. :biggrin:

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

I'm not sure what the confusion is here. The NPR article concluded she didn't violate any part of the law, which would include the sections you quoted originally.

What you're basically saying is "did your football team score any points in the first quarter?" My response was "They didn't score any points for the whole game". I don't know why you're coming back with "YEAH BUT WHAT ABOUT THE FIRST QUARTER, STOP EVADING".

Again, what is your source for your legal opinion?

Please quote where the NPR article said that she didn't violate any part of the Federal Records Act. The article only addresses this Act in the context of her having a private email account...they say nothing about the the illegality of her destroying government records...NOTHING.

 

[fskimospy]

Please quote where the NPR article said that she didn't violate any part of the Federal Records Act. The article only addresses this Act in the context of her having a private email account...they say nothing about the the illegality of her destroying government records...NOTHING.

I literally already did. I don't know what else to tell you.

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

I literally already did. I don't know what else to tell you.

Wow...just wow.

 

[fskimospy]

Wow...just wow. And exactly which post number did you actually post the relevant quote?

Seriously, just stop. This is embarrassing.

EDIT: Any chance you're going to stop evading and give us the source for your legal opinion, btw?

Take as much time as you need. Please.

 

[TheGardener]

Here is a fact. If the Justice Department believes it has evidence of criminal wrongdoing AND they decide to pursue it, Clinton's campaign is done, cooked, finished.

It doesn't mean that she'll go to jail. She might get the Spitzer treatment, which would be to walk away from political life. That was a backroom deal which could be repeated... if.

If Clinton removes her name from consideration for the POTUS, then I believe Sen Elizabeth Warren would jump in to replace her.