As it relates to deleting her personal emails, the lawyers for the DOJ claims she broke no law to a judge. It made no statement on anything else. The headlines written were incredibly dishonest. It's like responding with "I had every right to be driving that car" when defending yourself against speeding. There is no honest way to advance that argument. It totally misconstrues what was said and the forum it was said.
At no point in time did they say "no laws were broken" full stop. They made a specific claim about a specific act. That act was deleting personal emails. Not, emails, but a specific type. Of course this has already been pointed out to you and you've not changed the claim.
Just to add, they are right about the specific email. The laws protect government records and the laws at the time made it up to the record keeper to determine what was and was not a record. Not a fan of that rule because it required to take electronic records and turn them into paper, but there it is. It says nothing about personal emails.
Of course, everything I pointed to has nothing to do with personal emails and everything to do with government records. We are talking about what Clinton herself declared to be a government record when she eventually gave them back to the State Department. So as a counter-evidence it's a non-starter because it doesn't address the subject matter at hand. Government records. She had no right to delete government records nor to share them with her lawyer (no need to know) and possibly Platte River (no need or security clearance).
FOIA requests are typically handled by FOIA clerks in their respective agencies. They are paid on what is called the GS scale. There is no name given to the request, no court record, no judge involved. You submit your request and you hopefully get your information.
That is not what we are talking about here. We are talking cases like "A.P. vs. State Department" which is being adjudicated by a judge who is making more money than a GS clerk.
The AP made most of its requests in the summer of 2013, although one was filed in March 2010. AP is also seeking attorney's fees related to the lawsuit.
It takes a level of denial I can not fathom to see information such as this and still deny there have been lawsuits. Multiple. Even if you don't trust me to provide you with the proper distinction between the FOIA process and a lawsuit, not trusting the Associated Press to know the distinction of something they deal with every year is, again, unfathomable.
I swear the goalposts were firmly at the "show me the laws" line. This is just like dealing with a sovereign citizen. I show the law and you claim it doesn't apply. I show it applies and you change the subject. But you can't show how she complied with any of them or not run afoul of the espionage (providing military intelligence to non-authorized people).
Not everyone who commits a crime is indicted. Secondly, and most importantly, the FBI is still investigating. The FBI, which is part of the DOJ of which you claim they claim no law has been broken, has been expanding their investigations into this incident. Thirdly, I'd be surprised if she were indicted for the more serious of crimes that would call for up to a decade behind bars. Our justice system is so classed based it's not funny. Had someone in the Obama administration not leaked the the dual referrals to the FBI, we wouldn't be having this conversation.
And when the cops pull you over for speeding, you can claim that they haven't given you a ticket yet. It's true, to a point. It's also as premature as it is likely to be wrong. The FBI is not spending the time and resources investigating someone who you claim that "the DOJ says broke no laws."
Last edited:
