A Few Simple (?) Legal Questions About Hillary Clinton...

... and her emails. What specific laws and/or regulations did she break or potentially violate? What are the possible penalties and who can or will hold her accountable? Can a special prosecutor be appointed who is independent of the DOJ? Or is the special prosecutor law dormant? Or does it require consent by Democrats (who will block it)? Or does the fact that Hillary is now a private citizen shield her in any way? The last time I recall a special federal prosecutor being appointed in a high profile case like this was to investigate the leaking of Valerie Plame's identity to the media during the Bush/Cheney administration. As you will recall, when that was over Scooter Libby went to jail.

Try to hold the partisan mud-slinging for a bit. I am not interested in why you think what she did is a scandal or a non-scandal. What are the facts under the law?

Here is some gasoline for the fire.

http://www.cnn.com/2015/03/31/politi...-mail-devices/

As to your question, The National Archives asked for the E-Mails, The House asked for the E-mails, she was supposed to sign everything over, she was supposed to sign a document saying she did.
There are huge gaps in the e-mails she did turn over, and then, when told she might have to turn over her Server, she just wiped it clean, or dropped it in the Hudson, or burned the damn thing, who knows.

She has been, and continues to lie about the entire affair. I honestly don't know what laws were broken, but I have a feeling if Congress asked you to turn something over, and you told them to get fucked, your ass would be in a sling.
Hillary Clinton is a pathological liar. It's really that simple. She knows she can get away with anything, because the Major News Outlets simply ignore her misdeeds.

I have said it before. There are seemingly intelligent people who know what a lying, coniving, piece of shit she is, yet they still support her. It's baffling at the very least.

See quotes below - We have some major differences over how this is likely to play out. Either she broke the law or she didn't. If she broke the law, did she commit a felony or a misdemeanor and who will go after her? Like me, a lot of people are trying to gauge how much LEGAL trouble she is in. Politically, she is still riding high but that could change if her LEGAL problems pile up.

At the rate she is going, she will be lucky to avoid jail - forget about being President. Originally Posted by ExNYer

NO way she faces jail time; much less an indictment. Originally Posted by Whirlaway

There are three issues, all potentially serious:

1. Contempt of Congress types of things
2. Destroying public records (even if not "public")
3. Mishandling of classified/sensitive material

The third is, sadly, often the easiest to whitewash if the administration wants to.

There are three issues, all potentially serious:

1. Contempt of Congress types of things
2. Destroying public records (even if not "public")
3. Mishandling of classified/sensitive material

The third is, sadly, often the easiest to whitewash if the administration wants to. Originally Posted by Old-T

You forgot #4

4. Obama is going to throw her under the steam roller.


The devil made me do it... Lusty

I dunno, I am not a huge Hillary fan but I do prefer her over any Republican candidate. But, this looks bad to me. Does anybody know what the timing of the hard drive wipe was? I'd say that doing it anytime looks bad but if it was recently (like after the disclosure that she was using a private server) it looks really bad.

She destroyed evidence under subpoena. That is obstruction of justice, at a minimum.

Cuff her, find her guiltyin a trial, send her to death row, and then shoot the ugly bitch.

Does anybody know what the timing of the hard drive wipe was? Originally Posted by timpage

There are a series (2 or more) of letters from an attorney supposedly representing her in which there are a series of excuses for not turning over the emails beginning with none of them in her possession have to do with "government business" to the "server" was "wiped clean." Those letters began in the third-quarter of 2014 and ended in December 2014. The "implication" is that the "server" was "wiped clean" sometime during November 2014 and December 2014.

Two things: #1: As of December 2014 there existed a "server" that was "wiped clean." #2: Eventually, that "server" will be examined by a forensic computer examiner.

Unfortunately for the attorney, the attorney will be interviewed as to the time line and the attorney's "knowledge" of the existence of the requested "evidence." The "attorney-client privilege" does not protect the attorney from being required to disclose THE ATTORNEY'S participation in the "cover up" of a crime when THE ATTORNEY has facilitated and participated in the "cover up," particularly when the "cover up" has to do with "evidence" of criminal wrong doing. Think "Nixon."

She destroyed evidence under subpoena. That is obstruction of justice, at a minimum. Originally Posted by CuteOldGuy

+1

[O]n Sept. 20, 2012, nine days after the attacks. Rep. Jason Chaffetz, who was chairman of the House Oversight Committee's Subcommittee on National Security, Homeland Defense and Foreign Operations, sent a letter to then-Secretary of State Clinton asking for "all information … related to the attack on the consulate."....

[T]he Chaffetz letter included standard language telling Clinton, "In complying with this request, you are required to produce all responsive documents that are in your possession, custody, or control, whether held by you or your past or present agents, employees, and representatives acting on your behalf." The letter went on to include this standard definition:

The term "document" refers to any written, recorded, or graphic matter of any nature whatsoever, regardless of how recorded, and whether original or copy, including, but not limited to, the following: memoranda, reports, expense reports, books, manuals, instructions, financial reports, working papers, records, notes, letters, notices, confirmations, telegrams, receipts, appraisals, pamphlets, magazines, newspapers, prospectuses, inter-office and intra-office communications, electronic mail (e-mail), contracts, cables, notations of any type of conversation, telephone call, meeting or other communication, bulletins, printed matter, computer printouts, teletypes, invoices, transcripts, diaries, analyses, returns, summaries, minutes, bills, accounts, estimates, projections, comparisons, messages, correspondence, press releases, circulars, financial statements, reviews, opinions, offers, studies and investigations, questionnaires and surveys, and work sheets (and all drafts, preliminary versions, alterations, modifications, revisions, changes, and amendments of any of the foregoing, as well as any attachments or appendices thereto), and graphic or oral records or representations of any kind (including, without limitation, photographs, charts, graphs, microfiche, microfilm, videotape, recordings and motion pictures), and electronic, mechanical and electric records or representations of any kind (including, without limitation, tapes, cassettes, disks, and recordings) and other written, printed, typed or other graphic or recorded matter of any kind or nature, however produced or reproduced, and whether preserved in writing, film, tape, disk, videotape or otherwise. A document bearing any notation not a part of the original text is to be considered a separate document. A draft or non-identical copy is a separate document within the meaning of this term.

In other words, the committee wanted everything....

The State Department made its last production of materials to the House Oversight Committee on April 17, 2014. In all the time from the very first document request, State had never turned over a single email to or from Clinton.

On May 8, 2014, the House Select Committee on Benghazi was created, taking over all aspects of the Benghazi investigation. Three months later, on Aug. 11, 2014, State sent a few new documents to the Benghazi committee, including a small number — less than 10 — of emails to or from Clinton. Investigators immediately noticed those emails were from an previously unknown address, hdr22@clintonemail.com.

On Nov. 18, 2014, the Benghazi committee sent a document request to the State Department and to Clinton specifically demanding emails from the @clintonemail.com address. On Feb. 13, 2015, the State Department sent the Benghazi committee 850 pages of emails from two different @clintonemail.com accounts.

State said that was all the material that Clinton had given the department dealing with Benghazi. Those materials had been covered by a committee document request since Sept. 20, 2012, — nearly two and a half years earlier — and were arguably covered by the Aug. 1, 2013, subpoena. There is no doubt that Clinton withheld the 850 pages for all that time.

It was not until March 4, 2015 — a little more than three weeks ago — that the Benghazi committee issued a subpoena to Clinton for the emails. In response to the subpoena, in a letter dated Friday, March 27, Clinton's personal lawyer, the old Whitewater defender David Kendall, told Benghazi committee chairman Rep. Trey Gowdy that he, Gowdy, would have to ask the State Department for information, because State had all the relevant documents. Of course, State officials only had what Clinton had chosen to give them....

[T]here's no doubt Clinton destroyed evidence that was actively sought by congressional committees...

The bottom line is that the system of congressional investigations has a very difficult time dealing with an official who acts in bad faith, as Clinton did in the Benghazi affair. She hid documents from investigators for more than two years, and then, when investigators wanted to see the larger group of documents from which she selected what would be released, she destroyed the whole thing.



http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/th...rticle/2562232

A Few Simple (?) Legal Questions About Hillary Clinton... Originally Posted by lustylad

I see you're trying to keep things "Simple" for our resident Idiot Klanners, errr Clanners.

That's the spirit, keep it "Simple!"

Its a game of connect the dots;

We know that Hillary Clinton had her own privider email server installed for her correspondence (and those of her top aides). This in itself is a violation of law and State Department regulations.

Personal emails aside, if it can be shown that she posted classified information on an unsecure server then that is charge right there but this is hard to prove as you have to show what she posted (if the server is wiped clean or has disappeared...). Federal regulatory violations and they would have to depose her technician for information

If she wiped the server clean (as she has stated) after she knew the State Department wanted all of it's classified documents returned which was the day she walked off the job then that is another charge. tampering and obstruction

If she wiped the server clean after she became aware that the Congress wanted to see it or the information on it then there you go again. obstruction, contempt, and tampering

Here is the more likely scenario; she got rid of the server completely (dead servers tell no tales) and any server that she shows up with will be really clean and it can be shown that something SHOULD be on there, that would be obstruction.

If she continues to tell the same story under oath...perjury

If she is like Bill then maybe they throw Huma under the bus by claiming that Hillary was trying to hide a lesbian affair with her. So then it all becomes about sex again.

I see you're trying to keep things "Simple" for our resident Idiot Klanners, errr Clanners.

That's the spirit, keep it "Simple!" Originally Posted by bigtex

Usually, It's DSK that comes up with these "simple" "questions".

I see you're trying to keep things "Simple" for our resident Idiot BigTitties.

That's the spirit, keep it "Simple!" Originally Posted by bigtex

FIFY .. NO CHARGE!

... and her emails.

Try to hold the partisan mud-slinging for a bit. I am not interested in why you think what she did is a scandal or a non-scandal. What are the facts under the law? Originally Posted by lustylad

"The Captain" posted this on the other/prior Hillarious thread:


The crimes begin here ^^^^^^ ...