Breaking: Hillary 'Wiped Clean' Server, Emails Permanently Deleted

a reply to: Gryphon66

Why the long faces is because they love attacking PEOPLE and not ISSUES or IDEAS and it's not really justice they want it's petty revenge or vengeance. It's as plain as day. The small minded are like that. And it's sickening how many have come crawling out of the woodwork over the past two decades.

I on the other hand will wait to see the facts and the laws that were broken and the charges brought and then ponder on it some more. But many of the people here, no matter what the outcome, will then find something else to screech about.

God Bless 'Murica.

a reply to: IAMTAT

"F" her. Hope something like this will be the thing that tells this piece of s$$t to hang it up.

NOBODY WANTS YOU AS PRESIDENT!!

She's a rat, her husband is a rat and most of the people they've been associated with for the past 30 years are rats.

originally posted by: Xcathdra
a reply to: MOMof3

Because the congressional committee doing the investigation is being stonewalled by agencies not turning over records, refusing to come and testify in front of the committee. Secondly the DOJ wont do their job.

Considering they took Holder to court and won... Considering the courts ruled Obama over stepped his authority with recess appointments. With the most recent lie told by government lawyers to a federal judge I think this administration has run out of good will.

A RICO lawsuit has been filed against Hillary that is linked into scandal now. Only a prosecutor can issue warrants / charges. Those lawyers belong to the Executive branch (DOJ) and not the Legislative branch.

Which is to say Democrats are refusing to hold her accountable.

Here's your RICO.

The conservative group Freedom Watch has filed a racketeering lawsuit against former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton that accuses her of failing to produce documents under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA).

The civil suit, filed Wednesday in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida, argues that Clinton used her private emails to sell access to other officials in return for donations to the Clinton Foundation.

FOIA doesn't work on things that don't exist. Can Freedom Watch even FILE a RICO charge at this point? Let's keep an eye on that.

Doesn't a federal RICO charge have to be filed before there can be a civil offshoot? And isn't it to get someone for crimes not committed personally? So now did she wipe the server or just have someone do it? Maybe she assisted in swinging the hammer or pressing that Enter key.

In addition, this suit is not even related to the topic under discussion, as in Benghazi and what Gowdy said.

The mental gymnastics are amusing.

And again, nowhere is it written which law she allegedly broke. Check the dates. And I'll go out on a limb here and say the government doesn't want to even open that can of worms because what they would uncover deep inside that can won't make any of them look good or law-abiding. Interns with Congress email passwords, people not using email at all. Yeah this could be fun. I hope they do go for it.

a reply to: Freenrgy2

Be careful. Hillary might delete your emails too.

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: poncho1982

Are you calling me an infantile moron?

Because I'm glad that justice is going to be served?

That's really weird.

No, I said only one would be excited by this.

Are you excited by the situation?

Link to the Clinton RICO lawsuit.

RICO Clinton

originally posted by: ~Lucidity

Here's your RICO.

The conservative group Freedom Watch has filed a racketeering lawsuit against former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton that accuses her of failing to produce documents under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA).

The civil suit, filed Wednesday in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida, argues that Clinton used her private emails to sell access to other officials in return for donations to the Clinton Foundation.

I am familiar with the lawsuit considering I was the one who brought it up.

originally posted by: ~Lucidity
FOIA doesn't work on things that don't exist.

Yet the government is required to search for the information being requested. In the case of Hillary we know emails exist. We know she destroyed 30k of them.

originally posted by: ~Lucidity
Can Freedom Watch even FILE a RICO charge at this point? Let's keep an eye on that.

They sure can.

originally posted by: ~Lucidity
Doesn't a federal RICO charge have to be filed before there can be a civil offshoot? And isn't it to get someone for crimes not committed personally? So now did she wipe the server or just have someone do it? Maybe she assisted in swinging the hammer or pressing that Enter key.

RICO statutes are similar to contempt of congress charges. The statute has a civil and criminal element that are not dependent on each other. When Holder was found in contempt of Congress, he received 2 actions. 1 Criminal and one 1 civil contempt. Since the DOJ works for Holder the criminal contempt charge went no where. A civil contempt goes to a judge and in holders case the judged ruled he had to release emails and what not.

originally posted by: ~Lucidity
In addition, this suit is not even related to the topic under discussion, as in Benghazi and what Gowdy said.

Remember when I said do you see a patter yet? The link is Hillary refusing to turn over documents that fall under FOIA requests. Secondly did she have any email correspondence with aids / advisors talking about the FOIA request made by the guy from Florida? The FOIA request in question were made when Clinton was Secretary of State. The lawsuit demonstrates that over a 10 year time span legitimate FOIA requests were ignored.

originally posted by: ~Lucidity
The mental gymnastics are amusing.

yeah but it gets annoying when the gymnast is doing a routine over and over and over and over and has nothing to show for it.

originally posted by: ~Lucidity
And again, nowhere is it written which law she allegedly broke. Check the dates. And I'll go out on a limb here and say the government doesn't want to even open that can of worms because what they would uncover deep inside that can won't make any of them look good or law-abiding. Interns with Congress email passwords, people not using email at all. Yeah this could be fun. I hope they do go for it.

I already gave you the statute for the records law and you seem to be ignoring it. Dates have nothing to do with the statute or how its enforced with the exception of crimes committed at a time when the law says one thing and the current law says something else.

As an example If in 1975 a person kills another person and the law at the time sets the punishment at 20 years in prison. If the suspect is caught 30 years later for that crime they are required to use the laws and punishments in force when the crime occurred.


The Federal Records act came into force in the 1950's and not much has changed other than it updating with technology and how FOIA applies. There are 9 exemptions that can be used to prevent the release of documents. None of those 9 exemptions are present.

As for your comment about can of worms and how they would look. The federal government cannot use embarrassment as a means of hiding information. That came about with Watergate and Nixons taped meetings. Secondly one has to ask: If Hillary did nothing wrong then why refuse to turn over a server to an independent 3rd party (which is what was suggested).

Regardless of what you may think or ignore, Congress is within their authority to do what they are doing. Hillary has been getting caught in too many lies of her own doing. She has no one else to blame but herself.

originally posted by: ~Lucidity
a reply to: Gryphon66

Why the long faces is because they love attacking PEOPLE and not ISSUES or IDEAS and it's not really justice they want it's petty revenge or vengeance. It's as plain as day. The small minded are like that.

Awww...c'mon Lucidity...be honest.
"They" are not the only ones here on ATS who "love attacking PEOPLE" in a petty, vengeful and small-minded manner

Just look at some of the petty personal attacks quoted from your own thread regarding Bill O'Reilly (HIGHLIGHTED below):
www.abovetopsecret.com...

originally posted by: ~Lucidity

originally posted by: IAMTAT
Not really the same thing.
I don't really like the guy, but O'Reilly is a commentator...and doesn't represent his network.
Williams is/was a Network News Anchor...and does represents his network's news product.

And they're both liars at their core.

originally posted by: ~Lucidity
a reply to: Stormdancer777

He's not a nice man.

originally posted by: ~Lucidity
a reply to: UFGarvin

Maybe vindicated in his own pinhead.

originally posted by: ~Lucidity

originally posted by: Blackmarketeer
MORE lies from Billo - is this guy a pathological liar?

I do believe he is. And he's just a plain old nasty person.

Sound familiar?

originally posted by: IAMTAT
Not really the same thing.
I don't really like the guy, but O'Reilly is a commentator...and doesn't represent his network.
Williams is/was a Network News Anchor...and does represents his network's news product.

And they're both liars at their core.

originally posted by: ~Lucidity
a reply to: Stormdancer777

He's not a nice man.

originally posted by: ~Lucidity
a reply to: UFGarvin

Maybe vindicated in his own pinhead.

originally posted by: ~Lucidity

originally posted by: Blackmarketeer
MORE lies from Billo - is this guy a pathological liar?

I do believe he is. And he's just a plain old nasty person.

Sound familiar?

Yeah, and the funniest part about all that? They were simple, honest opinions and responses in a thread of comedic (to me) value.

But nice try

And keep trying. I love it when things get stalkerish and personal around here.

Reminder.....

Please stick to the topic....which is NOT other members.
Go After the Ball, Not the Player!

You are responsible for your own posts.

Community Announcement re: Decorum

Reaffirming Our Desire For Productive Political Debate (REVISED)

a reply to: Xcathdra

No one. NO ONE is agreeing or even saying that laws were actually broken. No media. No attorneys. No one. There is the possibility but no one has been charged. But of course you and all the people spewing that in this thread know better.

And I already told you to check the DATES on those laws your flipping about. And the dates that pertain to this issue.

a reply to: Xcathdra

Well, if you know so much, what is wrong with Gowdy and what is the next step? Where are the arrest warrants? If your only retort is the DOJ is bought, just don't bother to respond. Unless you are an insider with proof.

originally posted by: ~Lucidity

No one. NO ONE is agreeing or even saying that laws were actually broken. No media. No attorneys. No one. There is the possibility but no one has been charged. But of course you and all the people spewing that in this thread know better.

I guess you and I have a difference in defining the term "NO ONE".

* - Experts: Hillary Broke the Law
* - Yes, Hillary Clinton Broke the Law
* - Rand Paul: Hillary 'Clearly Broke the Law' Using Private Emails
* - Shannen Coffin: Hillary Clinton Broke The Law. Period.
* - Experts: Hillary Broke the Law
* - Rush on Hillary: 'Of course she broke the law'

MSNBC weighs in - The use of a personal email account was designed to avoid FOIA.
MSNBC’s Lawrence O’Donnell Hits Hillary on Email



This link, in my opinion, says it all -
White House Won't Say if Hillary Clinton Broke Law by Using Personal Email at State Dept.

if she didn't break the law the White House would have stated as much.

originally posted by: ~Lucidity
And I already told you to check the DATES on those laws your flipping about. And the dates that pertain to this issue.

repeating the failed date argument over and over doesn't change the fact she broke the law. The law in question was adopted in the 1950's. FOIA was adopted in the 1960's.

Hillary broke the law in 2015, and the 2 laws above bear that out.

originally posted by: MOMof3
a reply to: Xcathdra

Well, if you know so much, what is wrong with Gowdy and what is the next step? Where are the arrest warrants? If your only retort is the DOJ is bought, just don't bother to respond. Unless you are an insider with proof.

Im done with this circular argument. Long story short you are apparently only seeing what you want to see while ignoring facts that don't support Hillary.

You stated several posts back you've done your own research. Again I must say I dont think you did. Feel free to research what comes next with Gowdy's committee and why Boehner needs to be involved.

Secondly if you don't want people coming at you then you should probably settle down with your attacks. If you spent more time researching and less time ignoring facts and attacking people we would not need to have this same conversation every other page.

Ignoring facts don't make them go away.
Blaming Bush doesn't change the fact Hillary broke the law.

Hillary broke the law.
Hillary stated she broke the law when she gave the press conference where she talked about her private email server.
Her aids and other government officials had email accounts with her server so her claim it all was captured by the state Department is another lie.



ETA - Agency policies do not trump law.

a reply to: ~Lucidity

Lets not forget this sort of thing has gone on before...

www.theguardian.com...

But there's no corruption here, no.

Can a Judge order the Director of the NSA to release the saved records of those emails?? If it has been established they built that database to save all and every digital interaction across the internet, should not those emails still be saved in that database?? Insiders are already using it to blackmail each other, why not use it to apply rule of law?

What, is Bengazi a permanent committee? That investigation was closed a good while ago. I'm not a Hillary fanboy, but I would have wiped my e-mails, too.
a reply to: IAMTAT

a reply to: DYepes

Nah probably not on the grounds of 'national security'. In other words it may cause the citizens to revolt if they knew exactly what Clinton and others have been up to.

a reply to: Xcathdra

Sigh.

I could and have cited twice as many showing that there is doubt. Or that she didn't.

Point being, they don't know. And we sure as hell don't know if they can't agree. No one has been charged. Arrested. Indicted. And so we wait.

But we do not rush to judgement. We do not make grand declarations.

Is this a foreign concept to you?

originally posted by: daftpink
a reply to: ~Lucidity

Lets not forget this sort of thing has gone on before...

www.theguardian.com...

But there's no corruption here, no.

You also need to be aware that the Federal Records law only applies to the Federal government. The states have their own laws dealing with private Email accounts and what is public and what is not.

In Florida you don't have to demonstrate a need for requesting records and employees are required to turn over documents that are within Florida law.