3 ms·

Hillary's primary crime was destroying evidence weeks after it had been subpoenaed. https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2016/oct/09/donald-trump/donald-trump

Hillary's primary crime was destroying evidence weeks after it had been subpoenaed. https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2016/oct/09/donald-trump/donald-trump-says-hillary-clinton-deleted-33000-em/ https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2016/oct/09/donald-tru... >Clinton’s staff received a subpoena for Benghazi-related emails March 4. An employee managing her server deleted 33,000 of Clinton’s emails three weeks later. The Politifact article then goes on to say the FBI didn't believe they were deleted for the purposes of avoiding the subpoena, which may be true, but that doesn't make it less of a crime. I'm going to give my personal opinion now. The crime Clinton committed is a paperwork technicality crime and I don't think it would have been a good idea for the country to charge her. With the information we know so far about Trump keeping some docs that might have been government property, that also seems to be a paperwork technicality crime and if we don't find out something really insidious about it, I don't think it would be a good idea for the country to charge him.

someguydave 4y ago
I agree with this take. The more important issue is that there is no independent oversight on government secrecy, which is the underlying enabler of all of these "paperwork" claims.
- ericmay 4y ago
  Can you describe what mechanism would exist for “independent” oversight of government secrecy? It’s hard to imagine, say, the US military being audited by an independent authority that is able to look at classified documents like battle plans, or new weapons technologies. > these "paperwork" claims. In other words “I won’t accept anything that contradicts my pre-established belief”. It’s very similar to discussions I have with fervent religious believers. Better to take an engineers approach and change your mind when the facts change.
  - someguydave 4y ago
    > It’s hard to imagine, say, the US military being audited by an independent authority that is able to look at classified documents like battle plans, or new weapons technologies. It's easy to imagine if you restore the Constitutional authority of civilian management of the military (and all other aspects of government). A reasonably responsible US voter should have nothing hidden from them, even military secrets. >In other words “I won’t accept anything that contradicts my pre-established belief”. I'm sorry, how many secret military documents have you personally seen?
    - ericmay 4y ago
      > I'm sorry, how many secret military documents have you personally seen? Quite a few. I was on active duty in the US Army and deployed to Iraq where we planned and conducted air assault and VIP transport missions. I also had TS-SCI clearance. > It's easy to imagine if you restore the Constitutional authority of civilian management of the military (and all other aspects of government). A reasonably responsible US voter should have nothing hidden from them, even military secrets. Yea sure. Totally. Nuclear secrets, CIA operative locations, all plans and contingencies and movement of assets across the globe. Hell maybe I can take a UH-60 for a spin. My tax dollars paid for it!
      - someguydave 4y ago
        >Quite a few Good, then you know that everything classified is only for protecting important things and not hiding embarrassing things right? >Yea sure. Totally. Nuclear secrets, CIA operative locations, all plans and contingencies and movement of assets across the globe. Why not? The point of a clearance is to prevent foreign spying, not government oversight. Do you not believe all Americans are equal before the law?
        ericmay 4y ago
        It's an oversimplification, and I'm not sure what you are referencing w.r.t "embarrassing things". > Why not?... Do you not believe all Americans are equal before the law? I think the absurdity of your suggestion speaks for itself.
ModernMech 4y ago
> the FBI didn't believe they were deleted for the purposes of avoiding the subpoena, which may be true, but that doesn't make it less of a crime. Sorry, what now? The subpoena was for related emails. They claim they deleted unrelated emails and the FBI agrees. It’s not a crime to delete emails unrelated to a subpoena, especially when the subpoena (according to your link) did not request those emails. And doubly so when the FBI agrees those deleted emails were unrelated. So where do you see a crime in this?
- Consultant32452 4y ago
  You've been storing a bunch of documents for years. A court subpoenas information from you. You go on a massive file shredding campaign to destroy the documents you'd been happily storing for years. You pinky promise the court that the documents you destroyed were not subject to the subpoena. Do you believe this defense would work for you?
  - ModernMech 4y ago
    First, why do you believe the FBI was going only on a pinky promise? They are not famous for being friends of Hillary Clinton, and in fact disclosed (against precedent and protocol) an investigation into her while keeping secret a parallel investigation into Trump. They wouldn't take her word for anything. Second, the documents were happily stored because they were not under the purview of her political opponents. If Republicans on the Benghazi Committee wanted those documents they could have subpoenaed those documents. But they didn't. So why are we supposed to be upset that she deleted documents that weren't under the scope of the subpoena? Third, I notice you failed to articulate any crime, so again I ask: what was the crime? If Republicans didn't ask for unrelated into, and FBI couldn't find she deleted related info, then what unique insight do you have that she was attempting to evade a subpoena, aside from a vague hypothetical?

someguydave 4y ago

I agree with this take. The more important issue is that there is no independent oversight on government secrecy, which is the underlying enabler of all of these "paperwork" claims.

ericmay 4y ago
Can you describe what mechanism would exist for “independent” oversight of government secrecy? It’s hard to imagine, say, the US military being audited by an independent authority that is able to look at classified documents like battle plans, or new weapons technologies. > these "paperwork" claims. In other words “I won’t accept anything that contradicts my pre-established belief”. It’s very similar to discussions I have with fervent religious believers. Better to take an engineers approach and change your mind when the facts change.
- someguydave 4y ago
  > It’s hard to imagine, say, the US military being audited by an independent authority that is able to look at classified documents like battle plans, or new weapons technologies. It's easy to imagine if you restore the Constitutional authority of civilian management of the military (and all other aspects of government). A reasonably responsible US voter should have nothing hidden from them, even military secrets. >In other words “I won’t accept anything that contradicts my pre-established belief”. I'm sorry, how many secret military documents have you personally seen?
  - ericmay 4y ago
    > I'm sorry, how many secret military documents have you personally seen? Quite a few. I was on active duty in the US Army and deployed to Iraq where we planned and conducted air assault and VIP transport missions. I also had TS-SCI clearance. > It's easy to imagine if you restore the Constitutional authority of civilian management of the military (and all other aspects of government). A reasonably responsible US voter should have nothing hidden from them, even military secrets. Yea sure. Totally. Nuclear secrets, CIA operative locations, all plans and contingencies and movement of assets across the globe. Hell maybe I can take a UH-60 for a spin. My tax dollars paid for it!
    - someguydave 4y ago
      >Quite a few Good, then you know that everything classified is only for protecting important things and not hiding embarrassing things right? >Yea sure. Totally. Nuclear secrets, CIA operative locations, all plans and contingencies and movement of assets across the globe. Why not? The point of a clearance is to prevent foreign spying, not government oversight. Do you not believe all Americans are equal before the law?
      - ericmay 4y ago
        It's an oversimplification, and I'm not sure what you are referencing w.r.t "embarrassing things". > Why not?... Do you not believe all Americans are equal before the law? I think the absurdity of your suggestion speaks for itself.

ModernMech 4y ago

> the FBI didn't believe they were deleted for the purposes of avoiding the subpoena, which may be true, but that doesn't make it less of a crime. Sorry, what now? The subpoena was for related emails. They claim they deleted unrelated emails and the FBI agrees. It’s not a crime to delete emails unrelated to a subpoena, especially when the subpoena (according to your link) did not request those emails. And doubly so when the FBI agrees those deleted emails were unrelated. So where do you see a crime in this?

Consultant32452 4y ago
You've been storing a bunch of documents for years. A court subpoenas information from you. You go on a massive file shredding campaign to destroy the documents you'd been happily storing for years. You pinky promise the court that the documents you destroyed were not subject to the subpoena. Do you believe this defense would work for you?
- ModernMech 4y ago
  First, why do you believe the FBI was going only on a pinky promise? They are not famous for being friends of Hillary Clinton, and in fact disclosed (against precedent and protocol) an investigation into her while keeping secret a parallel investigation into Trump. They wouldn't take her word for anything. Second, the documents were happily stored because they were not under the purview of her political opponents. If Republicans on the Benghazi Committee wanted those documents they could have subpoenaed those documents. But they didn't. So why are we supposed to be upset that she deleted documents that weren't under the scope of the subpoena? Third, I notice you failed to articulate any crime, so again I ask: what was the crime? If Republicans didn't ask for unrelated into, and FBI couldn't find she deleted related info, then what unique insight do you have that she was attempting to evade a subpoena, aside from a vague hypothetical?