Politics Enough with the Hillary cult: Her admirers ignore reality, dream of worshipping a queen

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/07/08/hillary-clinton-emails-_n_7756106.html

House Republicans Release The Subpoena Hillary Clinton Said She Never Received For Her Emails

WASHINGTON — One day after Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton said she “never had a subpoena” for the emails she sent while secretary of state, House Republicans on Wednesday released a document appearing to contradict her — namely, the subpoena they’d served Clinton earlier this year.

During an interview with CNN’s Brianna Keilar on Tuesday, Clinton said that other secretaries of state had done the same thing as her in the past. Keilar replied, “They used a personal server, and while facing a subpoena, deleted emails from them?”

“You know, you’re starting with so many assumptions,” Clinton responded. “I’ve never had a subpoena, there’s nothing — again, let’s take a deep breath here.”

Do you recognize obstruction of justice when it's so blatant?

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/1519

18 U.S. Code § 1519 - Destruction, alteration, or falsification of records in Federal investigations and bankruptcy

Whoever knowingly alters, destroys, mutilates, conceals, covers up, falsifies, or makes a false entry in any record, document, or tangible object with the intent to impede, obstruct, or influence the investigation or proper administration of any matter within the jurisdiction of any department or agency of the United States or any case filed under title 11, or in relation to or contemplation of any such matter or case, shall be fined under this title, imprisoned not more than 20 years, or both.

 

HEY COULD WE USE A BIGGER FONT PLEASE?
HOW DOES ANYTHING SAID TO CNN QUALIFY AS OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE?
barfo

 

Copy / paste the article title as is. Big font and all.

 

Oddly, WaPost uses the word scant, which means "barely sufficient." Not "none" as the cultists want to believe. Not that it matters. The relevant laws she broke do not require intent.

 

One more tidbit about Bill Clinton. The day he left office, he reached a plea arrangement with the special prosecutor, Robert Ray. In return for Ray not prosecuting for perjury and obstruction of justice, Clinton admitted his crime publicly, apologized for it, paid a $25,000 fine, and his law license in Arkansas revoked.

Ray's reasoning was that impeachment and the trial was punishment enough, but there had to be some substance to what Clinton agreed to for his part in the bargain.

I'm fine with the way it turned out. I wish that Clinton came out with the truth right away because denying Paula Jones her day in court, no matter what you think of her or the case, is abuse of power and office. It would have been less embarrassing for him, too.

But to claim he was innocent in it all is utter bullshit.

 

She destroyed the emails on her server, deleted them. That's known as spoliation of evidence. She claimed she never got a subpoena, though the committee threatened subpoena all along, she was being investigated all along (Benghazi hearings), etc.

And then she outright lies in that CNN interview about not having the subpoena. The republicans produced it, so they proved she's lying.

Get the woman under oath and you're certain to see perjury in action.

 

"Clinton’s statement seems like an obvious contradiction. However, as usual, it’s not so simple, for several reasons. Clinton and Keilar were talking over each other; Keilar made an incorrect assumption in her question; and Clinton and the Benghazi Committee Republicans had different time frames in mind."

"Watching the video, it’s clear Keilar asked Clinton if and why she decided to delete emails off her server while facing a subpoena. But from what we know, Clinton was not facing a subpoena when the emails were deleted; she was only subpoenaed months later by the House Republicans."

Link.

barfo

 

And here's the money quote:

But Clinton’s choice of words is still somewhat misleading, especially to people who haven’t followed the controversy. "I’ve never had a subpoena" implies that up to the day of the interview, she has not received a subpoena related to her emails, which is incorrect.

Additionally, in the months when she was sifting through these emails, there was a pending formal request -- though not an official subpoena -- for the emails. So she knew at the time that the State Department and the Benghazi Committee wanted to look at them.

(the formal request was enough that she knew the emails she was deleting might be subpoenaed, and they were!).

Great find, barfo. It exactly fits the narrative I've repeated.

 

Well, if the bar is that one should never say anything that might be somewhat misleading to people who don't know what you are talking about, then that's a pretty high bar.

barfo

 

"I’ve never had a subpoena" implies that up to the day of the interview, she has not received a subpoena related to her emails, which is incorrect.

(replace incorrect with a lie, deceit, or whatever suits you, because she outright bold face lied right there).

 

BTW, in the case of spoliation, the court usually assumes the worst for the person who destroyed evidence. In other words, they assume the evidence was of guilt.

 

And yet, no charges are likely to be filed, so all your legal theorizing must be wrong in some fundamental aspect.

Or maybe it's a vast left-wing conspiracy.

barfo

 

Pure speculation.

 

Sure. Just like your repeated speculations on the topic. We'll see who turns out to be the better speculator. Whoever gets it right wins the Golden Speculum.

[I made that up, but of course it turns out via google that the Golden Speculum is an "actual" award.]

barfo

 

The facts aren't speculation. She deleted the emails. Equivalent to Nixon erasing all his tapes. Or even the one gap that was.

 

Her deleting emails when she did is about as illegal as you deleting your emails.

Not a crime, and just about as important, too.

barfo