cancel2 2022
Canceled
It's called precedent, you're supposed to be a lawyer so how hard a concept is that for you?
It’s fairly simple…
- Thread starter Jarod
- Start date
It's called precedent, you're supposed to be a lawyer so how hard a concept is that for you?
I doubt it. First, neither device was destroyed. Second, she did not take care of technical details like that. The State Department IT department cleaned the devices.
Uh, double negative much?
That’s not how precedent works
PostmodernProphet
fully immersed in faith..
actually that isn't a double negative.......you asked if he was obviously guilty......the answer is "obviously not".......why?.......because they were "not the documents" that violate the law......why were they not the documents?.......because they were not "documents he was not entitled to have"........triply ignorant much?......
SmarterthanYou
rebel
explain. the rule of law would require that hillary be prosecuted. what she did was against the law on several accounts, am I wrong?
IN what stretch of the imagination is he entitled to have those documents. Keep in mind 44 USC 2202 and 18 USC 2071?
SmarterthanYou
rebel
bleachbit destroyed digital data and at least one of her cells was destroyed by an aide. The State Dept IT team would NOT clean devices that did not belong to them. Any attempts to deflect that SHE didn't do it, but her aides did without her direction is bullshit. you've been hammering trump for that shit for years now.
democrat apologist.
She had no intent. When asked for the documents she turned them over and did not lie about having them. DOJ has policies about when and if they prosecute, and they do not prosecute accidents.
Is it your argument that Trump is GUILTY but should not be prosecuted?
She destroyed personal data, nothing that was a presidential record, nothing that was Top Secret, and nothing that was under a subpoena.... So how is destroying your personal data illegal?
More But.... But.... But... Hillary. Didnt you want her locked up?
The State Department IT department both setup up, and cleaned the devices. They do that a lot. They do not have any restrictions about doing that on devices belonging to State Department staff.
SmarterthanYou
rebel
no intent? WHY did she sidestep government policy by having a PRIVATE email server? Was a PRIVATE server necessary for her job as SecState when the state dept provides her with one? or privately owned cells when the dept provides them?
no, obtuse one. my argument is you fucking idiot libs should not get all triggered because he doesn't, since you make excuses for all the democrats who didn't get prosecuted, setting a political precedent.
SmarterthanYou
rebel
how do we know that if the data is destroyed? isn't that usually called obstruction and destruction of evidence?
SmarterthanYou
rebel
whataboutism
Sandy Berger was given a small fine for stuffing documents into his pants and socks.
Indeed there isn’t.
“But "the real problem is there's absolutely no enforcement mechanism in the Presidential Record Act and there's no administrative enforcement provision," she said.
cbsnews.com
You demanded she be locked up. Having a private server is not illegal regardless of intent.
How is that relevant to establishing who owns the records?