She didn't turn over all of the e-mails corrected as you suggest, wondering why a subpoena would be necessary. And she lied yesterday. The New York Times, a far right rag even bothered to print it. http://www.nytimes.com/politics/fir...en-a-subpoena-but-a-document-shows-otherwise/
Show was asked for emails pertaining to Benghazi. She delivered all 55,000 pages of emails only 900 of which concerned Benghazi. A lie. Let me know when Hillary has been charged with a crime, OK? Deleting browser history is standard security procedure. It's not a crime in and of itself. The Sarbanes–Oxley Act is a law that set requirements for all U.S. public company boards, management and public accounting firms to combat fraud. There are also provisions that apply to privately held companies, for example the willful destruction of evidence to impede a Federal investigation. And despite what that silly video suggests, it has not been used to convict people of deleting their browser history unless they were impeding a federal investigation. Hillary was not under a federal investigation, nor was she a private company. And the friends of the Boston Bomber were convicted of removing a backpack full of fireworks from Tsarnaev’s dorm room. There were no paper documents or computer records involved in their case, only the “tangible objects” of the backpack and fireworks. The entire law is up for review by the Supreme Court because of the problems it has caused when it has been used outside of its intended purpose of fighting corporate accounting fraud. Nice try, no cigar.
What? I repeat, what exactly did I make up? If I "wonder" why a subpoena is needed, it is an opinion. I can have those, you know.
Personally delivered.....you think she might have acknowledged that in the interview yesterday? In the interest of being totally trustworthy? He wanted access to the private server which they had been previously unaware. She is not the open book you portray her as. She says people should "trust her". Well then, start telling the entire truth, not just snippets that make her look like little saint lucy. I haven't made an argument about legality. I am making an argument about her blatant stupidity, lack of discretion, lack of common sense, the inability to tell the truth, and the audacity (great Dem word) to act as though SHE is the one being treated unfairly. If a candidate for President's best tag line is "I haven't broken any laws", that says a lot and it's sad. And FTR, I don't equate her actions and words with Powell's but if someone wants to go after him, I don't care. I'm not his biggest fan anyway.
Sorry Red the use of email when Powell was SOS was significantly different than 5 years later. To call it a double standard is in itself a double standard.
The law wasn't in effect then nor were there standards. That was your hero BHO's work. Sorry ex post facto means you're full of it.
Well, it's quite naive to expect a politician to be totally trustworthy. We are always happy to get one that is reasonably so. Hillary is running at about 2.5 on the Trump scale. She could do better, but it's a long race. If this is the worst they can come up with on Hillary, it's going to be a long year and a half for the Republicans. This no-smoking-gun petty scandal doesn't have legs that long. The free-for-all Republican bash fest is coming up to take the story away. Scandals galore. Christy still can;t get past his. I bet Bill started this. It's a campaign scheduling maneuver. Smooth. Don't hold back. Let it out. She's as arrogant as Jennifer Anniston. Conniving as Bill Cosby. Screeches like Neil Young. Bitch be annoying. Actually her best tag line is "What difference does it make?" That was a good one. It shut Ron Johnson up.
Winston, do you think they were using quill pens in 2005? Email has been around a long time and I guaran-goddamn-tee that government business was conducted on it.
