no. you said something about "investigators"-it's an incomplete reference. either clarify your intent or STFU.
2000 : Hillary Said She Won't Use Email Because They Can Be Found By Investigagators
- Thread starter cancel2 2022
- Start date
Is this news to you? Its not to me, when someone like HRC, who has been in the public eye for as long as she has, and has been investigated so many times (all investigations have cleared her) you pay attention to what investigators might twist and turn to use against you. It becomes a challenge to both do your job, and protect yourself from intentional misinterpretation by partisan investigators.
In medicine they call it, defensive medicine. For fear of being wrongfully sued Doctors do things a specific way so the "records" show a perfect job. They often have two separate sets of notes one for the "record" and one set that later is destroyed off the record. I know this to be true via conversations with Doctors and things I have attained in the legal discovery process. HRC is doing the same thing. The hope is that defensive does not get in the way of quality medical care.
I don't like it, but that's clearly what's going on here. The Republicans have been so afraid of HRC for so many years, she has endured frivolous investigation after fruitless frivolous investigation. I think it started with the Rose Law Firm records and has a direct line straight through most recently Benghazi and now emails.
cancel2 2022
Canceled
Would you use that as a defence for one of your clients? More to the point would you be surprised if that was laughed out of court?
He ignores that the government, all of it, is required to save ALL communication and what she did while poorly executed was illegal.
This is not about Court, in Court we have very strict rules about what defenses and evidence we can use. If I would use that defense in Court or not would depend on what I was defending and the specific situation I was in Court for and if it was a viable defense or not. In politics we have much greater latitude about arguments that can and cant be made.
HRC's case is not going to Court because a crime was not committed, thus there is no defense necessary.
that's illegal intent to obfuscate records.
The general consensus though is she did it ( amoung other less compelling reasons) so not to be subject to FOIA request.
Which is pretty much the same thing.
Clinton has consistently lied -so we don't know,but this "convenience" of 1 device excuse fell thru long ago.
I'm not ignoring that, and the fact is that all that information was saved by HRC.
Doctors are not allowed to keep two separate sets of notes either, but they do.
Its not illegal intent in this situation, no matter how mad you want it to be. Sorry you don't seem to understand the law very well.
it's certainly right on the line. also destroying 33k emails simply by their header is suspect.
She fits every description of the Espionage act. Comey's "intent" included.
He looked for precedent in prosecution -he didn't look all that hard either.
Long and short of it -he pulled a Roberts - not wanting to insert himself into the electoral process.
But his speech and testimony to Congress show just how corrupt/devious/"extreme carelessness" she was
He is certainly not a principled guy but considering who he is working for what can you expect ?
methinks he is too principled -getting in the way of his prosecutorial role.
The while thing was very fishy.
The Clinton/Lynch meeting -disqualifying Lynch from the role;
then Comey not wanting to overstep his bounds -reluctant to charge being an investigator..
It's fairly typical Clintonianism at work -screw up the investigation and then disqualify the lead role.
They are Masters of Deception. They live along the very edges of the law, so when they cross over, it's not noticed/exposed
cancel2 2022
Canceled
So handling top secret emails on a private insecure email server is within the law, that's got to be bullshit.
cancel2 2022
Canceled
So wahat about the 30 thousand emails she deleted and then lied about or the fact that potentially top secret emails were hacked by the Russians and/or the Chinese?
No, I am saying her motivation was privacy you stupid simpleminded cunt.
Just ask the FBI and the Justice Department.
You have some evidence she lied about the 30 thousand emails? If you look you will see she did not lie about them and was perfectly entitled to erase them.
You do understand that the topic of the thread is Hillary's motivation to use a private server right?
That is what Jarod and I are both discussing here.