3 ms·

>But not personal emails. That's true. >The House GOP is careful to avoid making that distinction, because their goal is to feed a sense of impropriety--a goa

by gozur88 10y ago

>But not personal emails. That's true. >The House GOP is careful to avoid making that distinction, because their goal is to feed a sense of impropriety--a goal which seems to be well-met here on HN, judging by the comments. No, the sense of impropriety was fed by Hillary Clinton herself when she turned over a tiny fraction of emails relating to official business and then destroyed the rest so nobody could ever retrieve them. Honestly, that people can't see, by now, after the cattle futures, after the Rose Law documents, after the Clinton Foundation, after the destroyed emails, that this woman is crooked... I can't help but be amazed.

snowwrestler 10y ago
Again, to make this perfectly clear: she was only required to turn over official business emails. And was legally permitted to do what she wanted with her personal emails, including delete them. It is nonsensical to say that following the law implies impropriety. On top of this, the FBI recovered and reviewed many of the emails that she deleted, and did not find anything damning. They declined to recommend a prosecution. Setting aside the politics of "it's Hillary Clinton and she's running for president," there is no evidence that she tried to break the law, or succeeded in doing so. The evidence shows that she wanted some privacy, and even Hillary Clinton is entitled to that under the law.
- gozur88 10y ago
  >Again, to make this perfectly clear: she was only required to turn over official business emails. Again, to make this perfectly clear: she was required to turn over official business emails and she omitted thousands of them. She deleted the ones she didn't turn over and had the server purged. It takes a lot of chutzpah to set up a server such that your personal email is intermingled with official government communications and then claim you're the only person who can go through that server looking for official email that shouldn't have been there. >The evidence shows that she wanted some privacy, and even Hillary Clinton is entitled to that under the law. People try to use privacy rights to cover criminal activity on a regular basis. That's why we have subpoenas and laws against destruction of evidence.

by gozur88 10y ago

snowwrestler 10y ago

Again, to make this perfectly clear: she was only required to turn over official business emails. And was legally permitted to do what she wanted with her personal emails, including delete them. It is nonsensical to say that following the law implies impropriety. On top of this, the FBI recovered and reviewed many of the emails that she deleted, and did not find anything damning. They declined to recommend a prosecution. Setting aside the politics of "it's Hillary Clinton and she's running for president," there is no evidence that she tried to break the law, or succeeded in doing so. The evidence shows that she wanted some privacy, and even Hillary Clinton is entitled to that under the law.

gozur88 10y ago
>Again, to make this perfectly clear: she was only required to turn over official business emails. Again, to make this perfectly clear: she was required to turn over official business emails and she omitted thousands of them. She deleted the ones she didn't turn over and had the server purged. It takes a lot of chutzpah to set up a server such that your personal email is intermingled with official government communications and then claim you're the only person who can go through that server looking for official email that shouldn't have been there. >The evidence shows that she wanted some privacy, and even Hillary Clinton is entitled to that under the law. People try to use privacy rights to cover criminal activity on a regular basis. That's why we have subpoenas and laws against destruction of evidence.