@juliaw
@peter-t-burke
@kevlar

You posted the @’s for Peter and Kevlar so I added them to my post also.

To start I will assume that you were meaning the three of us in your comment about Republican-leaning Volkalizers. Let me be clear, I detest the Republican party as much as I do the Democrats. To me they are the same. To emphasize the point, if anyone called me a republican to my face there would probably be a fight.

To the issue at hand. Is Killary guilty of breaking the law? Yes, many multiples of times.

As can be found in the links below.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2008/03/hillarys_list_of_lies.html

http://www.liberallyconservative.com/hillary-clintons-laundry-list-of-lies/

http://www.westernjournalism.com/hillary-clinton-fired-for-lies-unethical-behavior/#QarCLMybFoLC1JqV.97

Over the years she has proven herself to be unethical, involved in criminal activities, and a chronic liar. She has also proven herself to be unfit to hold any political office. If not for the fact that she is the wife of a former president and her willingness to lick obozo’s boots, she would have been imprisoned a long time ago.

Is she guilty of any wrong doing as far as this current accusation? I don’t know. Only time will tell. She could have been doing this so she could hide information about things she has been doing, she may have been doing this so she could communicate with people she shouldn’t be communicating with, or this may be the way she has always done business and never saw the need for a government email address. Any of these are possible.

Here’s where opinion comes in and please note that this is just opinion. She has proven herself to be an unethical liar who will stoop to anything to get what she wants, why should anyone believe that she had this personal email address for anything less than to hide damning information that could harm her career?

Do I think she is guilty because she used a personal email address? No. Do I think she used it for unethical reasons? Absolutely, without question. But they have not proven that yet, so they have no grounds for convicting her of anything, as far as this matter goes.

Back to your original statement about defending republicans, here is the short list of republicans that I find totally repugnant.

1. Sen. Lincoln Chafee (R.I.) Once approached by Democratic Leader Harry Reid to switch parties, Chafee has long supported liberal policies. He backs legal abortion, gay rights, federal-funded health care, strict environmental protections and a higher minimum wage. Opposes ANWR drilling. Also was the only Republican in Congress not to endorse the President’s reelection and one of three who tried to gut Bush’s tax cuts.

2. Sen. Olympia Snowe (Maine) A self-described “centrist,” Snowe scored a 100% pro-choice voting record as scored by NARAL and consistently votes with Democrats on social issues.

3. Sen. Arlen Specter (Pa.) “Snarlin’ Arlen” warned Bush not to nominate judges who might overturn Roe v. Wade, joined Chaffee reducing tax cuts and supported Democrats on the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty, HMO and overtime regulation. Also opposed school choice in Washington, D.C.

4. Sen. Susan Collins (Maine) Voted with liberals on the 1999 tax cut, campaign finance reform and the partial-birth abortion ban. Also advocated “pay-as-you-go” tax cuts with spending increases in 2004, leading to a budget never agreed upon between the House and Senate.

5. Rep. Christopher Shays (Conn.) He led the House fight for McCain-Feingold campaign finance “reform.” He’s also prone to back environmental causes, gun control and abortion rights. He had no GOP challenger in 2004, but narrowly escaped defeat, 52% to 48%, by a Democratic opponent in the general election.

6. Gov. George Pataki (N.Y.) Helped unions raise pay and unionize Indian casinos. Has said, “I believe in a limited government, low taxes, a tough approach to crime. … But I also believe in an activist government. I’m not one of those laissez-faire types.”

7. Rep. Sherwood Boehlert (N.Y.) Over the course of his 23-year career, he’s gained considerable power (chairman of the Science Committee), despite amassing one of the most liberal voting records of any House Republican. Fought back conservative challengers in 2000 and 2002 and could face a GOP challenge in ’06.

8. Gov. Mitt Romney (Mass.) Has said, “I believe that abortion should be safe and legal in this country.” Supports civil unions and stringent gun laws. After visiting Houston, he criticized the city’s aesthetics, saying, “This is what happens when you don’t have zoning.”

9. Rep. Michael Castle (Del.) As president of the moderate Republican Main Street Partnership and key player in the so-called Tuesday Group lunches, he is a ring-leader of RINOs. He’s teamed with Democrats to make federal funding of embryonic stem cell research one of his top priorities.

10. Rep. Jim Leach (Iowa) One of only six House Republicans to vote against the Iraq War resolution in 2002, he was also the only Republican to vote against President Bush’s 2003 tax cuts. His support for environmental causes and abortion rights has won him liberal fans.

If you ever, and I mean ever, see me defend any one of these pieces of garbage, you call me on it and I will never post on this site again. This bunch of pond scum and the many like them are the reason my blood pressure rises when I even hear the word republican.

You said, “Everyone should judge their own party just as hard as they judge the opposing.”

And.

“Today, I am going to defend my party………..”

Having made statements like that and knowing Killary’s background, how are you being objective when you defend her?

@juliaw

cc:
@jlriggs57aol-com
@kevlar
and anybody else who would like to jump in.

Julia,
Thank you for including me. It has been quite a while since I have heard from Volkalize. I am complimented that you would solicit my opinion on this issue.

Did Hillary break the law as Republicans Claim?

In order for Hillary to break the law there would have to be a law that prohibits Hillary Clinton, either by name or in general, from some act.

I have not seen any evidence of any such law. I have seen Agency Rules, Policy Guidelines, and several directives regarding the retention of the emails of public officials but no such law. I have looked for case law but it seems that no Senior Officials of the Administrative Branch of the US Federal Government has called before a Federal Judge of proper venue and competent jurisdiction to defend against a specific charge of violating any of the provisions of 5 USC 552.

So until somebody produces proof that there is a law governing the issue and Hillary Clinton met the elements of a violation my short answer is “No, I don’t see where Hillary Clinton broke the law regarding making her official email available for public examination under FOIA.”

That said it is clear to me that she disregarded the spirit and intent of FOIA and did so with the callous disregard that the HilBil Clinton has shown throughout its public life. This should be no surprise to anyone considering the long running road show of moral bankruptcy show by the HilBil Clinton.

You appeared to imply that I might be grouped with the “Republicans” and for all practical purposes that is probably fair.

In fact I am not a “Republican” for the simple reason that the Republicans no longer exist as a distinct political party just as the Democrats no longer exist as a distinct political party. The only reasonable accurate designation for US politicians is “Liberepublicrat”. The current label of Republican or Democrat simply describe the different portions of the Liberepublicrat Party. Both groups adhere to a fully developed “Tax and Spend” philosophy the sole difference being how they would spend the net tax payers money. The Republicans are the “BIG government” faction of the Liberepublicrats and the Democrats are the “B-I-G-G-E-R government” faction.

Arguing that one side is different from the other is like arguing that it is better to get run over by a Chevrolet than being run over by a Ford.

Truth, Bullshit, and Lies. I highly recommend Dr. Harry Franfort’s book, “On Bullshit”, Princeton University Press, 2005 which is available on Amazon ( http://www.amazon.com/Bullshit-Harry-G-Frankfurt/dp/0691122946/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1425838223&sr=8-1&keywords=On+Bullshit ).

He argues that bullshitters misrepresent themselves to their audience not as liars do, that is, by deliberately making false claims about what is true. In fact, bullshit need not be untrue at all.

Rather, bullshitters seek to convey a certain impression of themselves without being concerned about whether anything at all is true. They quietly change the rules governing their end of the conversation so that claims about truth and falsity are irrelevant. Frankfurt concludes that although bullshit can take many innocent forms, excessive indulgence in it can eventually undermine the practitioner’s capacity to tell the truth in a way that lying does not. Liars at least acknowledge that it matters what is true. By virtue of this, Frankfurt writes, bullshit is a greater enemy of the truth than lies are.

I also recommend “On The Prevalence of Humbug” by Max Black.

When listening to HilBil Clinton it helps to recall Alice’s conversation with Humpty Dumpty:

Humpty appears in Lewis Carroll’s Through the Looking-Glass (1872), where he discusses semantics and pragmatics with Alice.

“I don’t know what you mean by ‘glory,’ ” Alice said.

Humpty Dumpty smiled contemptuously. “Of course you don’t—till I tell you. I meant ‘there’s a nice knock-down argument for you!’ ”

“But ‘glory’ doesn’t mean ‘a nice knock-down argument’,” Alice objected.

“When I use a word,” Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, “it means just what I choose it to mean—neither more nor less.”

“The question is,” said Alice, “whether you can make words mean so many different things.”

“The question is,” said Humpty Dumpty, “which is to be master—that’s all.”

Alice was too much puzzled to say anything, so after a minute Humpty Dumpty began again. “They’ve a temper, some of them—particularly verbs, they’re the proudest—adjectives you can do anything with, but not verbs—however, I can manage the whole lot! Impenetrability! That’s what I say!”

This passage was used in Britain by Lord Atkin in his dissenting judgement in the seminal case Liversidge v. Anderson (1942), where he protested about the distortion of a statute by the majority of the House of Lords. It also became a popular citation in United States legal opinions, appearing in 250 judicial decisions in the Westlaw database as of 19 April 2008, including two Supreme Court cases (TVA v. Hill and Zschernig v. Miller).

It has been suggested by A. J. Larner that Carroll’s Humpty Dumpty had prosopagnosia on the basis of his description of his finding faces hard to recognise.

“The face is what one goes by, generally,” Alice remarked in a thoughtful tone.
“That’s just what I complain of,” said Humpty Dumpty. “Your face is the same as everybody has—the two eyes,—” (marking their places in the air with his thumb) “nose in the middle, mouth under. It’s always the same. Now if you had the two eyes on the same side of the nose, for instance—or the mouth at the top—that would be some help.”

(copied from Wikipedia in re: Humpty Dumpty )

In my opinion HilBil Clinton is a skilled and practiced Bullshitter and should be recognized as such. I personally feel that HilBil Clinton should be awarded a Congressional Medal for being able convince the US public that any opposition to bullshit promulgated by the HilBil Clinton is just a “vast right-wing conspiracy”.

@juliaw
@jlriggs57aol-com

Julia

I post so seldom on this site anymore that I had to get a new password because I forgot the old one. The reason I seldom post here anymore is because last year I included, much as you did here, a name in the @list and was attacked for so doing. In this case I wanted to watch for a couple days to see where this might go before jumping in again in a similar group.

Your question, “did Hillary break the law” is good and the answer in general terms is a very certain “YES”

However in specific terms, as James pointed out, the answer is not so clear. My gut tells me that she did break the law specifically but as of right now I am unable to quote the law she broke.

When I say in general terms I believe she did break the law and I believe that eventually it will be revealed which specific law she broke. I also, by making that statement believe wholeheartedly that she violated the intent of many laws, but violating the intent is sometimes a crime and sometimes not. It often depends on how good your attorney is at sharpening his pencils.

Everything this country does and every piece of communication this country makes is the property of the owners of this country and you and I, by virtue of being citizens, are the rightful owners.

In reference to those emails of the Secretary of State, who is an employee of yours and mine, every one of her emails that has ANYTHING to do with her position as Secretary of State, is in fact my property, and yours, and the property of EVERY citizen of this great nation.

As long as those communications regardless of written documents or emails because the point is ALL communications are in a place that I as the owner of said communications can access, and they are secure to the standard prescribed by the owners within then-current guidelines (there are guidelines for the dissemination of, for example, classified information and I would have to meet that guideline), I should be able to go in and get the communications (as an owner of this country and therefore owner of that communication).

If those communications are stored in a building that belongs to the Department of State and by extension belongs to me (and you as owner) and I meet the criteria for classified (not all of these communications are classified), I should be able to go in and get them.

Do you believe for even one second that I (as an owner of this country and therefore owner of those communications) can just walk into Hillary’s personal house and get that communication?

NOT A CHANCE. I am the owner of this country, as are you, and neither you nor me can get what rightfully belongs to us without first obtaining her personal permission to enter HER private house.

Did she violate the intent of the law? Absolutely and without doubt. Which law did she break? As indicated above I cannot identify a specific law for you (although I believe that will soon be available) but I would start with the laws that state that the government is there to serve the people (not the other way around) and in doing so one might start with the Declaration of Independence which states unequivocally that the federal government exists for the sole purpose to protect OUR rights, and that the government derives their just power from the CONSENT of the governed (that would be you and me).

I know for fact that I did not give Hillary permission to run the communications of the Department of State through her personal server and I also know for fact that you didn’t either. In fact nobody, having the proper authority to do so, gave her permission. She just made an assumption that since it was a Clinton she would get away with it.

Yes, she violated the law. If you need a specific law other than the founding documents (which are very clear in what they direct) to understand the obvious, you might need to wait but I think even that will be coming.

I know you want to cover for her because you want her to be President (good luck there after all the illegal activity she has done) but if you pay attention to current events and what this country stands for you will be able to answer your own question.

This answer is based on common sense and not on the Republican Party (in which I put no stock). You as a liberal democrat should understand the notion that you own this country and what she did was wrong.

Neither party has a corner on right/wrong, in fact I believe they are both generally wrong. I don’t look at parties, I look at individuals. I also know that no one individual is perfect. I tend to vote for the candidate who makes the best case on the issues. I also know enough about politics and our system of laws to be able to fairly accurately determine if the candidate can stick to his promise.

For example Obama campaigned on the promise to end the “war” in Iraq. I’m smart enough to know that such a promise cannot be made because there is no way to accurately make such a statement short of the willingness to use nukes to eliminate the enemy (in which case the war is immediately over).

However, the one thing I forgot was the one thing he did in order to keep his promise. Any war can be ended if you are willing to surrender, and surrender he did. Now we have a new war to replace that war but no matter the expense in blood, the promise was kept. I thought he cared more about this country than to surrender, but I was wrong.

The answer to your question is overwhelmingly easy!

@peter-t-burke
@juliaw
@kevlar

Hello……..Julia……..Hello……..Uh, you started this discussion topic. Would you care to agree or rebut what has been posted on your discussion?

You asked for us to give our opinion, we did, where are you?????

@jlriggs57aol-com
cc:
@juliaw
@kevlar

Maybe Julia is convinced and doesn’t see the need to rebut unassailable logic?

She seems pretty intelligent and open to being persuaded by reality.

@peter-t-burke @jlriggs57aol-com @kevlar Sorry for the delay I’ve been sick.

Unfortunately I havent been able to keep up on this topic since I have been ill. However I am starting to read up on what I’ve missed and I am still standing with the same opinion and here is why:

It seems no one can come up with a solid argument of how Hillary has broken the law. She may have gone against policies that had not been enacted yet, but furthermore there seems to be no penalty for doing so, other than the fact that it is “against policy”

@jlriggs57aol-com the articles you posted there are a ton of “lies” in there, however none of them show where she has broken the law. Again, the question is whether she broke the law. Which I dont believe she did.

If we want to start talking about politicians that lie, I think there are many others that will have a laundry list of lies and misconduct. It seems to be the political way.

@Peter-t-burke you said it best HERE “I have not seen any evidence of any such law. I have seen Agency Rules, Policy Guidelines, and several directives regarding the retention of the emails of public officials but no such law. I have looked for case law but it seems that no Senior Officials of the Administrative Branch of the US Federal Government has called before a Federal Judge of proper venue and competent jurisdiction to defend against a specific charge of violating any of the provisions of 5 USC 552.

So until somebody produces proof that there is a law governing the issue and Hillary Clinton met the elements of a violation my short answer is “No, I don’t see where Hillary Clinton broke the law regarding making her official email available for public examination under FOIA.”

I completely agree with your statement. There is no such law so everyone should stop saying she “broke the law”

@Kevlar I appreciate your comments. Until there is proof, or an indictment, I don’t think that anyone can say for certain Hillary broke the law. If she did, I am pretty sure someone would/should go after her. Is she acting unethically? Maybe. But not illegal.

However I will say, and I will ask this question to the rest of the group.. that maybe it will be revealed in her emails that she did break the law or break more policies.

Hillary may not want to hand over her emails, which isn’t illegal, but maybe it’s because there is some kind of evidence of illegal activity in her emails. I hope not, however I do agree with @Kevlar that the public has right to know what is in her emails that she is so afraid to turn over. What do you guys think?

@juliaw
@jlriggs57aol-com

Julia:

Sorry to hear you haven’t been feeling well but it sounds like you might be feeling better now.

Thanks for acknowledging, at least at the basic level that the public does have a right to know.

Since Hillary was the Secretary of State she worked for the people and as such the public does have a right to see what she did on their behalf and how she did it. As a qualifier to that statement I tip my hat to the concept of classified information because that can cast a cloud on everything.

As a matter of checks-and-balances, even within the same department, she doesn’t get to determine what constitutes government business and what constitutes personal business. This is one of the many reasons for government owned communication systems. In other words if you ONLY do government business on the government communication system (in this case email) then there is no quarrel over what is private and what is not private because ALL of it is government (not private).

Hillary elected not to do any of this. Instead she did (allegedly) ALL of her emails, both official or government AND personal on a private server. Your question is where is the law making that illegal. It is a good question and as I stated I feel comfortable that it will be produced.

However, even if there is no specific law that she broke, she certainly violated the spirit of many laws and to list them would take a while but it can be summed up by saying that she did my (and yours) business on her personal server. As such, our business resides only on her private server. Where is the trouble with that?

Many places actually. For one, she does not get to say what is and isn’t her private stuff and what is our stuff but she did just that. If you trust her then why would you care? You do trust her and therefore you don’t really care. I don’t trust her and therefore I do care.

Lets turn the tables a bit. Who is the Republican politician you hate most? To expedite this conversation I will assume that you hate George W. Bush most (if I’m wrong it won’t really matter for this conversation).

If Bush did the same thing and told you that he went through and decided what was and what wasn’t government business, would you trust him? No, you wouldn’t and you would feel cheated just as Hillary’s non-supporters do now. In fact I’ll bet you would be saying that Bush probably cheated you and would call for an investigation. Welcome to the rest of the world where the tables are turned.

Personal email conducted on a government computer belongs to the government until such time as a competent authority (other than the offender and their buddies) decides via a thorough review that it is indeed personal. By the same token, government email or business AND personal email conducted on a private server also belongs to the government (you and me).

Since we (you and me) don’t trust everyone the same, until such time as that same competent authority decides via thorough review that some of the email on that PERSONAL server (the one containing government business) is indeed personal, ALL of it technically belongs to the government. We just haven’t fought that battle in court yet.

Just to be clear on this, until such time that it can be decided by a competent authority that both you and I trust, via thorough review of each and every email that has ever been on that server since Hillary started working at the Department of State, ALL of the information on that server belongs to the government (you and me). She has admitted to deleting that which she believes to be personal but she doesn’t get to make that determination because that decision can be made only directly by you and me or by someone we both trust. I probably trust her less than you distrust George Bush.

She admits that she deleted some of the emails. I automatically and with good reason (granted my reasons are my opinion unless I cite them in detail but this is long enough already) distrust her and since I do I am reasonably and officially accusing her of destroying property that belongs to me (the taxpayer). If she didn’t then all she has to do is show me ALL the emails to prove me wrong, but she deleted them so it’s too late.

For the record, using the same rationale, I believe she destroyed property belonging to you (taxpayer) as well, the only difference is that you don’t care because you trust her. I don’t.

Is is very clear, beyond all doubt, that she did something she probably shouldn’t have done regardless of legality, she admitted as much. Consider that, the “mistake” if you will, and the fact that she made a conscious decision to do so (as much as I don’t like her and don’t trust her I will admit that she’s pretty smart) she knew exactly what she was doing when she did it.

Regardless of any law she might have broken (I still remain convinced that it will be revealed but probably not prosecuted at least as long as Holder and Obama are still here), she clearly brought this on herself and did so knowingly as she is well versed in law. This stinks whether or not a law has been broken. Yet many Americans are so uninformed that they will blindly vote for her regardless. I find that amazing and at the same time very troubling.

Also, if as she has said several times she conducted no classified business via these emails, and as owner of ALL those emails until such time they are determined personal by a competent authority, I as a taxpaying citizen should be able to make a FOIA request to get them ALL (not most, but ALL). If I did get them ALL and there is no reason why I shouldn’t be able to get them, do you think that there would be NO REDACTIONS? If none of it was classified or otherwise sensitive there will be NO REDACTIONS.

I will bet my next paycheck that I cannot get ALL of those emails on that server (to include those she deleted unless determined by competent authority to be personal) and have NOTHING REDACTED in them. Ah hell, I’ll bet you two paychecks on that sure deal!

This was a conscious decision on her part (not an accident) and yet she knows that the majority of voters are too dumb to know when they have been abused by their government. She probably will run for President and because we know that the average voter couldn’t care less about their rights and freedoms and how the Constitution protects them, they won’t know that they have been screwed and they will vote for her to screw them some more. Long live the uninformed voter because that is the ONLY way Hillary will EVER become President (it worked for Obama twice).

@juliaw
@jlriggs57aol-com

Julia,

The HilBil Clinton is doing the same thing I do. My non-sensitive email goes to me in the open but everything that is sensitive in anyway goes to an encrypted private personal server in a location where I can be confident of its integrity.
The communications on that server are stripped off to an encrypted drive and then put on an air-gapped computer. I do this to deliberately protect and hide what I am doing. This is a common practice in business to hide sensitive data from prying (read “No Such Agency”) by any entity who was not invited to participate.

Clearly, the issue is the right of the people to know what is being done in their name, but …

there are so many cuts in 5 USC 552 (FOIA) that it is going to die the death of a thousand cuts.

Every group and every adherent has found a perfectly good reason to make an exception for their personal pet issue. The Science Advisory board that advises the EPA is a good example. Should the “science” that is used to justify regulations imposed on US citizens be classified and exempted from publication?
http://osp.od.nih.gov/office-biotechnology-activities/biosecurity/nsabb

Here some folks who don’t think so:
http://www.newson6.com/story/28554428/house-passes-gop-bills-targeting-epas-secret-science

But.. here comes the faction who think that anything the military want to hide is OK. Or the police – unless it deals with men and children – or guns – or you name it.

Everybody has their pet issue.

The issue that bothers me is that HilBil Clinton is the sort of people that I would not my kids to associate with. The HilBil Clinton is just a clutch of morally bankrupt low-lifes. So why would anybody be surprised by any thing they do>

Now I must admit I would be shocked if somebody could document that the HilBil Clinton had a “Come To Jesus” moment and made a firm purpose of amendment to change their ways and pursue God, truth, and righteousness.
I won’t say it can’t happen but I’ll bet we’ll have a problem with flying pigs first.

What sort of people would defend people like the HilBill Clinton? I am not so concerned that the HilBil Clinton has done some further backsliding and squirming around with the other mud people. I am concerned about the apparently good people who are deceived into lending their support to them.

@peter-t-burke
@juliaw
@kevlar

Julia, you said, “Before we get started on this discussion topic, I want to point out that on this website I am often told that I always side with the Democrats. Republican leaning Volkalizers have said that I am unwilling to look at the truth. I personally think that argument goes both ways. Everyone should judge their own party just as hard as they judge the opposing. Today, I am going to defend my party and provide evidence that the Republican party is outright lying to manipulate the American people.”

First, you wanted to point out that you are often told that you always side with the Democrats. Then you go on to say that you are here to defend your party…….the Democrats. Maybe that’s why we say that.

Then you say that everyone should judge their own party just as hard as they judge the opposing. When have you ever said that someone in the Democratic party has done something wrong? If you did I missed it.

On the other hand I gave you the short list of those in the Republican party who I said were, quote-unquote, “pieces of garbage” and “pond scum”. And it was definitely the short list. I have two in my home state I didn’t even put on the list, but they fall into the same category.

I have to wonder why you didn’t comment on the fact that I called out these folks, who are in fact, Republicans. You say that’s what we should do, yet you don’t acknowledge it when someone does. Why?

To the next point. I will assume that you at least went to the sites I posted and looked at the information. Instead of posting links that showed my information was wrong, all you did was say that they were “a ton of lies”. That is blindly following, not judging by information.

Lastly, none of the sites showed that she did anything wrong in this case, this was to show her character and her integrity, which I believe she has neither. As far as her being guilty of these particular accusations I said, “Is she guilty of any wrong doing as far as this current accusation? I don’t know. Only time will tell.” and “Do I think she is guilty because she used a personal email address? No.”

Where is the recognition that I am not just jumping in with both feet saying she is guilty just because she’s a Democrat.

I will withhold any final judgement on this issue until all the evidence is in, just as I would if it were a Republican or anyone else.

@juliaw

@jlriggs57aol-com

Julia,

A question if you will.

What are the commendable attributes that you feel Democrat politicians have that sets them apart and above any other politician?

Is it merely a matter of choosing the least diseased and perverted low-life from a population of low-lifes, or is there some inherent quality that shows that they are people of high moral distinction despite the fact that they are politicians?

Do you think that Hillary Rodham Clinton is not a self-serving moral bankrupt who exploits anybody without qualification, for her own personal gain?

I have read your questions and your responses and you present yourself well.

You seem to be a person of thought and good intent. It seems to me that you are defending the nostalgic concept of a political party that has not existed for the past 50 years of my experience.

I am interested in why you appear to be reluctant to condemn a politician merely due to party affiliation.

@juliaw @peter-t-burke @jlriggs57aol-com

Julia, have you heard the most recent news on this topic? Hillary Clinton deleted content from her servers that was specifically asked for by congress via subpoena.

http://www.cnn.com/2015/03/27/politics/hillary-clinton-personal-email-server/index.html

Whether she had broken the law or not before is irrelevant, because she sure has now. She has deliberately deleted and tampered with evidence.

Riggs, Julia will always defend her party. It’s the only thing she knows how to do. Lets see she if can “be critical” of her own party right now.

Who in their right mind is going to believe that Hillary Clinton deliberately deleted emails off her server if there wasn’t something illegal and incriminating on there?

According to most hackers, in order to recover the data, we need to get the server from her now, every day that passes more and more data will not be recoverable via the hardware. Clinton is a complete crook. How could anyone trust her as a reliable candidate for President of the United States?

@peter-t-burke
@juliaw
@coffeeaddict

Coffee, Julia will more than likely tell you the information on your link is “filled with a ton of lies” as she did the information I posted.

You said, “Whether she had broken the law or not before is irrelevant, because she sure has now.” I doubt in her eyes Killary could ever do anything wrong, for the simple fact that Hillary is a democrat.

It won’t surprise me any if Julia doesn’t post any more comments, this is usually the point at which she drops out and is never heard from again, but if she does I’m sure it will be to defend Hillary, somehow.

@jlriggs57aol-com @coffeeaddict @peter-t-burke if you guys want to make this an attack on me then thats fine.

However I will go back to the topic at hand. Again, deleting personal emails is not illegal. Deleting anything that was considered public record would have been illegal. I will say that I think Hillary should have just given them the server with an agreement that anything they find not related to what they are specifically looking for is to remain private.

From what I understand, the subpoena from Trey Gowdy was specifically for emails related to Benghazi. So therefore any emails related to anything other than Benghazi should not be entered into any kind of evidence. So if HIllary deleted any emails related to her personal life, her foundation, running for office, etc. Those should be protected as private.

It’s just like when someone issues a warrant for drugs in a house, if they enter the house and find guns instead of drugs, they cannot use that as evidence. They have to specifically say what they are looking for and find it.

Now, the fact that we are still looking in to this Benghazi thing is just ridiculous. Should I dare even go there? I know that’s a hot button topic with you guys.

@juliaw

you wrote:

@jlriggs57aol-com @coffeeaddict @peter-t-burke ” if you guys want to make this an attack on me then thats fine.”

As a matter of clarity please point out what I wrote that was an attack on you.

Peter T Burke

@jlriggs57aol-com
@juliaw
@coffeeaddict

The subject at hand:

Since now there are no emails to produce there is no proof that any law was broken.

It’s not what you know – it’s what you can prove.

So did The HilBil break the law? The burden of proof will rest with the accusers.

As I have said before:

“It not what you do that makes any difference -all that counts is what can be proven that you did”.

Once again The HilBil is as innocent and pure as the driven snow in this the best of all possible worlds.

I think that even Candide would agree that that The HilBil, like The Obama, is a reflection the nature of the people of the USA: innocent until proven guilty.

@peter-t-burke
@juliaw
@coffeeaddict

Julia, I haven’t seen any “attacks” on you. We are just curious as to why you defend anything a person does just because they are democrat.

You said, “Again, deleting personal emails is not illegal.” However, when you are using a personal email address to do government business not all of those emails are personal. So how do we know that all of the emails she deleted were strictly personal? Because she said so, isn’t good enough.

You said, “From what I understand, the subpoena from Trey Gowdy was specifically for emails related to Benghazi. So therefore any emails related to anything other than Benghazi should not be entered into any kind of evidence.”

She deleted emails. How many of those emails were about Benghazi? None, why? Because she says so?

Did you even take the time to follow Coffee’s link? It’s from CNN. This is not the hated FOX News network, it’s from your own liberal folks, the beloved and cherished CNN, second only to MSNBC on the liberal scale.

They said, (“Secretary Clinton unilaterally decided to wipe her server clean and permanently delete all emails from her personal server,” Gowdy said in a statement.

Gowdy had also asked that Clinton turn over her server to the State Department inspector general for an independent review.

Clinton’s lawyer, David Kendall, said no.}

Doesn’t that seem even a little suspicious to you?

You can say we are attacking you if you want to, but even your own liberal news outlets are starting to get a little curious about why Killary is doing this, but you still want to defend her.

Julia,
You wrote:

“From what I understand, the subpoena from Trey Gowdy was specifically for emails related to Benghazi. So therefore any emails related to anything other than Benghazi should not be entered into any kind of evidence. So if HIllary deleted any emails related to her personal life, her foundation, running for office, etc. Those should be protected as private.”

With due respect your conclusion, i.e. … so therefore any emails …, is incorrect.

Evanescent Evidence is evidence that is about to pass from existence.

A reasonable belief that evidence is about to be destroyed can also constitute exigent circumstances. In one case for instance, police officers followed a suspected drug dealer to an apartment complex after he sold drugs to an undercover officer. Police officers knocked on the door of the apartment (which later turned out to have been a different apartment) and then heard sounds they thought were evidence being destroyed. They announced their intent to enter and went in. The Supreme Court said the police acted appropriately even though they entered an apartment different from the one the original suspect had entered, because they didn’t create the exigent circumstances and because they were allowed to take action when they thought evidence was being destroyed.

The HilBil is a college trained lawyer with personal experience with committing, and hiding, crimes both great and small. It is entirely reasonable to assert that The HilBil acted deliberately and with judicial contempt in destroying material that was within the scope of the subpoena.

The issue is that Trey Gowdy acted stupidly in not asking a court of competent jurisdiction for an “In Camera” hearing to ask the Court to issue a Capias order to seize the server due to a reasonable belief from past history that the server would be wiped clean thereby preventing the people’s right to discovery.

Anybody who has even a slight knowledge of the law such as myself would know that a criminal will destroy any evidence of wrong doing if given the chance.

Hillary is a graduate of Yale and a licensed attorney married to lawyer who lost his law license as a result of a perjury conviction. It is reasonable to assert that she is familiar with the concepts of her duties as an Officer of the Court and as a member of the Bar.

I am always amazed at the fond affection that the people of the USA have for the criminals who rob and kill them.

@juliaw humor me and take a look at this article: 10 scandals involving Hillary Clinton

http://www.mrctv.org/blog/10-scandals-involving-hillary-clinton-you-may-have-forgotten

How can you defend this woman at all?!!!

@jlriggs57aol-com
@peter-t-burke
@juliaw
@coffeeaddict

@peter-t-burke
@juliaw
@coffeeaddict
@twocents

Julia, how do you feel about the information on the link that Two Cents posted? Do you have some sites that show these accusations are fabricated? If not, would you be willing to say that maybe there is reason enough to question Hillary’s ethics? And if there is reason enough to question her ethics, shouldn’t we question whether she may have deleted government emails?

What do you say, Julia?