How many subpoenas can Hillary ignore?

[cbrunny]

If something requires action on your part, i.e. a document and especially a summons, you get that mailed to you as well usually.

mailed or e-mailed? A subpoena delivered via e-mail.. completely unsolicited? Yeah I'd ignore that in a heartbeat. I bet my junk mail filter would filter it out actually.

 

[xBiffx]

mailed or e-mailed? A subpoena delivered via e-mail.. completely unsolicited? Yeah I'd ignore that in a heartbeat. I bet my junk mail filter would filter it out actually.

Again, its both for documents that require action. The link just talks about e-mail but I'm willing to bet it was snail mailed as well.

You could ignore the snail mailed copy too, btw.

 

[cbrunny]

Again, its both for documents that require action. The link just talks about e-mail but I'm willing to bet it was snail mailed as well.

lol then how is that proof she ignored a subpoena and lied about it? If your proof of it being received is not actually proof of it being received, sounds like there is a problem with the proof.

 

[xBiffx]

lol then how is that proof she ignored a subpoena and lied about it? If your proof of it being received is not actually proof of it being received, sounds like there is a problem with the proof.

Probably because it isn't in question that she received it all only, only at what time did she receive it. Unless you take the CNN transcript at face value that is.

It would be no different if it was delivered through snail mail. Documents don't usually get sent certified mail (read receipt requested) from a court. That creates too much paperwork to track.

 

[ivwshane]

Probably because it isn't in question that she received it all only, only at what time did she receive it.

It would be no different if it was delivered through snail mail. Documents don't usually get sent certified mail (read receipt requested) from a court. That creates too much paperwork and a tracking issue.

If back peddling was an Olympic sport you'd be a gold medalist!

 

[TheSlamma]

Does anyone around here at all know how the Open Records Act and Freedom of information act works?

My guess is if this were a republican then all of a sudden the knowledge would rise to the occasion, but instead we have selective retardism. This is again why bias for parties is such a bad thing, illegal activities become negotiable if they politician is on "your team"

 

[xBiffx]

Does anyone around here at all know how the Open Records Act and Freedom of information act works?

My guess is if this were a republican then all of a sudden the knowledge would rise to the occasion, but instead we have selective retardism. This is again why bias for parties is such a bad thing, illegal activities become negotiable if they politician is on "your team"

I don't think that necessarily applies to open investigations. Pretty hard to conduct an investigation if you have to disseminate every piece of information to the public while conducting the investigation. I don't think it would be any different if a Republican was under investigation as far as the release of information went before the investigation was over.

 

[dank69]

...

You could ignore the snail mailed copy too, btw.

Now would ignoring the email and the snail mail copy count as ignoring one subpoena or two?

 

[lotus503]

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/interactive/2015/07/09/subpoena-to-clinton/

this clearly states that a subpoena was delivered VIA E-MAIL. How is that even a thing? You can subpoena by e-mail now?

Yes but it doesn't count as served.

 

[xBiffx]

Now would ignoring the email and the snail mail copy count as ignoring one subpoena or two?

LOL. In this context, it would appear to depend on what party you root for. 😀

 

[werepossum]

Shouldn't there be a receipt where she was handed a subpoena? Surely if something doesn't fly for alimony in circuit court, it doesn't fly for the highest level of government.

 

[fskimospy]

Shouldn't there be a receipt where she was handed a subpoena? Surely if something doesn't fly for alimony in circuit court, it doesn't fly for the highest level of government.

There is no argument over whether she got a subpoena.

Gowdy just took her words out of context either because he read a poorly written transcript or because he was trying to lie about what she said. Easily misled people repeated what he said, and here we are.

 

[cbrunny]

To answer the title question, I'm guessing that Hillary can ignore as many as 75 subpoenas. Maybe 80, if she tries REALLY hard.

 

[Jhhnn]

There are two viable D candidates. Clinton and Sanders. Two more than the Republicans have with, what, 16 candidates?

Rimshot!

It's all ground well trod by Repubs since Jan 2009- If you got nothin' to build up, tear down the opposition with a series of trumped up scandals, try to bury 'em under a supertanker's worth of slime, aspersions & innuendo.

 

[nickqt]

And dems would never, EVER do such a thing.

Hillary could walk into a daycare center, molest every child on live tv, and you idiots would still sing her praises and find some way to blame the stupid party.

If you believe this, you're deluded.

If you don't believe this, you're stupid.

Which is it?

 

[boomerang]

OK, so if I got the gist of this right, once again, something a Democrat said was taken out of context? Misunderstood, etc.? I posed some questions in my first post and instead of answering them, I've gotten the usual deflections and then we're off on a tangent which is typical when the questions posed are too uncomfortable to answer.

Here is a link to the interview on CNN that has become a big part of the thread. At least until the tangent of the mechanics of actually serving a subpoena became the main diversionary topic.

http://www.cnn.com/videos/tv/2015/07/07/hillary-clinton-cnn-exclusive-wxdc.cnn

The segment that is 2:40 (Hillary Clinton on how 33,000 emails got deleted) contains her statement where she says she never received a subpoena. That is at the 1:00 mark.

Bonus points if you hear her tell the lie that she only had one device. There are still shots of her where she's holding at the very least two different phones and she is on record talking about her Blackberry.

 

[feralkid]

Clinton is such a shady character, she reminds me of Nixon.

Me too!

I don't know if it's her razor wit, her profound intelligence or her taste for the old Vat 69, but those two are like peas in a pod.

 

[First]

OK, so if I got the gist of this right, once again, something a Democrat said was taken out of context? Misunderstood, etc.? I posed some questions in my first post and instead of answering them, I've gotten the usual deflections and then we're off on a tangent which is typical when the questions posed are too uncomfortable to answer.

Here is a link to the interview on CNN that has become a big part of the thread. At least until the tangent of the mechanics of actually serving a subpoena became the main diversionary topic.

http://www.cnn.com/videos/tv/2015/07/07/hillary-clinton-cnn-exclusive-wxdc.cnn

The segment that is 2:40 (Hillary Clinton on how 33,000 emails got deleted) contains her statement where she says she never received a subpoena. That is at the 1:00 mark.

Bonus points if you hear her tell the lie that she only had one device. There are still shots of her where she's holding at the very least two different phones and she is on record talking about her Blackberry.

lol