Hillary Lied To CNN: House Committee Releases Subpoena She Claimed She Didn't Get

the subpoena was issued in march 2015, there was no e-mails at that time to act on, her sec state e-mails had already been sent to the state department by Hillary in 2014, and she deleted some of the personal and most of the top secret files by then....you can't subpoena for something that isn't available.

a reply to: xuenchen

by the way, did you even do any research on this?.....or did you see the title and thought it was cool, and it had to be true?

originally posted by: dukeofjive696969
Bernie In 2016

#FeeltheBern

a reply to: jimmyx

That's irrelevant to whether you are subpeona'd or not. What evidence exists, or does not is irrelevant to whether she was subpeona'd.. Or not..

You can be subpeona'd as a witness, and never testify; Doesn't make the subpoena any less valid. Infact whether your testimony would be used or not, will have zero bearing on the warrant issued against you, should you not appear.

originally posted by: xuenchen
a reply to: Aloysius the Gaul

All legal.

"By Consent" means She knew and allowed the email serve.

I imagine that is what it is supposed to mean....but it is still one sided.

originally posted by: jimmyx
the subpoena was issued in march 2015, there was no e-mails at that time to act on, her sec state e-mails had already been sent to the state department by Hillary in 2014, and she deleted some of the personal and most of the top secret files by then....you can't subpoena for something that isn't available.

She was served and said she wasn't.

A Lie is a Lie is a Lie is a Lie.

All spelled the same too.

a reply to: Aloysius the Gaul

Not being rude, but have you ever been issued a subpoena ? It really is a very simple process issuing it.

EDIT: Let me correct myself, it really is a very simple process receiving it.

originally posted by: Aloysius the Gaul

originally posted by: xuenchen
a reply to: Aloysius the Gaul

All legal.

"By Consent" means She knew and allowed the email serve.

I imagine that is what it is supposed to mean....but it is still one sided.

and legally acceptable.

I'm awaiting her answer to be in the form of a question, such as, "can you define the word 'receive'?" After all, she is a Clinton....isn't that how they roll?

Hilary came. She saw. She lied!

Guess lying runs in the family.

Her and Bill.

Just more proof of 'How you can tell when a politician is lying ?'

Answer their lips are moving.

originally posted by: CrawlingChaos
a reply to: Aloysius the Gaul

Not being rude, but have you ever been issued a subpoena ? It really is a very simple process issuing it.

EDIT: Let me correct myself, it really is a very simple process receiving it.

No I haven't received one (that I recall....)

Not sure why that would be relevant though.

I do sense a double standard here also - had it been some conservative on the receiving end of something that is legal but looks a bit dodgy most of the respondants I see here would be screaming police state or Obama tyranny or NWO or some similar nonsense.

Just my observation of course

Hillary never lies. Sheonly "misremembers".

a reply to: Aloysius the Gaul
No, the double standard here buddy is you defending this psychopath when in reality if it were you that dodged this simple legal process you would have a warrant out for you.

originally posted by: Aloysius the Gaul

originally posted by: xuenchen
a reply to: Aloysius the Gaul

All legal.

"By Consent" means She knew and allowed the email serve.

I imagine that is what it is supposed to mean....but it is still one sided.

It is the same "one sided" standard that you or I would be held to and in the eyes of ANY Court in the USA, she was served.

I think what she meant to say was she never COMPLIED with any subpoena. She just ignored it.

a reply to: xuenchen
Hillary is a habitual liar, she is not trustworthy at all. I do not see how anyone could think she would make a POTUS. Secondary, I would not want Bill any where near the White House again.

a reply to: Aloysius the Gaul

The reason I asked, is because you'd understand there really is nothing to receiving a subpoena. The lack of her having signed anything, or receiving it by email isn't really odd.

Of course, I'm going off how it is to be subpeona'd by a court, that I have experienced. I've never been summoned by a house committee. Though I would suspect it's not that different.

Not just the one, but....

Gowdy: Hillary Got Three Subpoenas