3 ms·

>Then where is it? It was given. Apparently you don't like the source. Here's another. http://www.judicialwatch.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/06/JW-v-State-Mul

• lern_too_spel 10y ago
  It's not that I didn't like the source. It's that the evidence didn't hold up to the most basic scrutiny. Mull simply did not have the ability to give Clinton a Blackberry. Aside: you are aware of what Judicial Watch is, right? They're the conservative group that led the prosecution against Clinton on this issue and repeatedly failed. Of course they are going to ask questions about FOIA, the Espionage Act, and anything else they can try to stick on her. You're being misled by listening to only the prosecution and not the judge or the defense that totally dismantled their case.
  • 13years 10y ago
    >It's that the evidence didn't hold up to the most basic scrutiny So there was evidence? >Mull simply did not have the ability to give Clinton a Blackberry. That is irrelevant to establishing a motive. The emails don't suggest that Clinton was aware of that fact and they do suggest that Mull for some reason thought this information that would be important to Clinton's decision. >you are aware of what Judicial Watch is, right Yes, but this is to be expected. When the right is in power, I expect left leaning groups to lead the charge to accountability and vice versa. It is rare that a group ever holds itself accountable. >judge or the defense that totally dismantled their case. They thought it was good enough to proceed with questioning. http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/judge-orders-clinton-answer-written-questions-email/story?id=41523306 http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/judge-orders-clinton-answer-w... I'm not sure what you mean by dismantled. They requested a deposition and was granted. Clinton did not answer all questions and they have requested through federal court that she answer all questions. I have not seen an update on that request.
    • lern_too_spel 10y ago
      > So there was evidence? Don't be facetious. That's like saying that there is evidence that the Sun revolves around the Earth because we see it pass overhead every day. That evidence doesn't hold up to basic scrutiny either. > That is irrelevant to establishing a motive. The emails don't suggest that Clinton was aware of that fact and they do suggest that Mull for some reason thought this information that would be important to Clinton's decision. The emails don't even suggest that Clinton saw Mull's offer, and they don't suggest that either Abedin or Clinton thought Mull's offer was viable after their experience with the NSA. Why should they waste their time with it if it wasn't going to go anywhere? > Yes, but this is to be expected. Exactly. Then why do you use them as your sole source? The Daily Caller article lifts its entire story from Judicial Watch's arguments. If you wanted to learn why those arguments didn't work the first n times, the other side's arguments are out there for you to see. > They thought it was good enough to proceed with questioning. He threw them a bone. He denied their motion to depose Clinton and instead sent her a written questionnaire. She returned her answers on October 13, containing exactly the same reasons she gave before for using the Blackberry.
      • 13years 10y ago
        >The emails don't even suggest that Clinton saw Mull's offer, and they don't suggest that either Abedin or Clinton thought Mull's offer was viable after their experience with the NSA. Why should they waste their time with it if it wasn't going to go anywhere? You are making assumptions for which we don't know the answers. Which is exactly why such questions are asked to begin with. >Then why do you use them as your sole source? The Daily Caller article lifts its entire story from Judicial Watch's arguments. If you wanted to learn why those arguments didn't work the first n times, the other side's arguments are out there for you to see. Likewise then why do you suggest I simply dismiss claims by taking the other side's argument? We can also assume it would be a defensive position. Evidence doesn't become no evidence based only on the other side's account. It might be determined to be weak, irrelevant to claims etc based on investigation. Stating there was no evidence suggests there was 0 basis to make the claim prior to investigation. We don't in hindsight do the investigation and then look back and say the evidence isn't evidence. We can say the evidence wasn't conclusive or didn't support said claims strong enough to investigate further etc.