freeman3 wrote:So I should vote for someone for president with policies that I consider far worse for the country because Hillary tried to shield her email from right-wing snoops? Give me a break.
1. No, you should vote (as I will) so as to not offend your conscience. I don't know how liberals justify voting for her given her vacuum of ethics.
2. It is not "right-wing snoops" she was avoiding, but the American people. If she didn't want accountability, there was no mandate on her serving. She was free to NOT be Secretary of State.
I wouldn't care if a Republican did it, honestly, unless it was proven to have hurt national security. If you think it's so important then don't vote for her
If you set the bar any lower, you'd be able to support Rod Blagojevich for President.
And, btw, we are just beginning to see how far the Clinton Foundation corruption has spread.
Otherwise, who are you trying to convince? Unless you can get her criminally charged for this you got nothing. Nothing.
Because the Obama-appointed IG of the State Department presents facts that are inconvenient, you naturally resort to . . . "this is nothing. Get an indictment."
The Goldman Sachs speeches are significant because they say something about the influence of Wall Street on her. I'm not sure what this email saga says about Hillary and her ability to govern. If you can't get her criminally charged or link this email thing with her ability to be president then you've got, uh, nothing.
She lied about it. Repeatedly.
She exposed national security info to hackers.
She violated State Department rules--and fired people for doing the same thing.
And, she broke the law:
In fact, Washington Free Beacon reported last year that Clinton signed an NDA at the start of her time at the State Department acknowledging the very laws she is now clearly in violation of.
For those of you keeping score at home, the Federal Records Act lays it out pretty clearly: (18 U.S. Code § 2071)(a) Whoever willfully and unlawfully conceals, removes, mutilates, obliterates, or destroys, or attempts to do so, or, with intent to do so takes and carries away any record, proceeding, map, book, paper, document, or other thing, filed or deposited with any clerk or officer of any court of the United States, or in any public office, or with any judicial or public officer of the United States, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years, or both.
(b) Whoever, having the custody of any such record, proceeding, map, book, document, paper, or other thing, willfully and unlawfully conceals, removes, mutilates, obliterates, falsifies, or destroys the same, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years, or both; and shall forfeit his office and be disqualified from holding any office under the United States. As used in this subsection, the term “office” does not include the office held by any person as a retired officer of the Armed Forces of the United States.
That is the federal law in question. It covers all federal agencies. Each individual agency (The Department of State, in this case) then implements rules and policies for all employees so that their operations are in accordance with the law. The rules have been violated, therefore the law was broken.
Will she be indicted?
Doubtful.
The same AG who decided "sex" means something other than what a biologist would say it is seems an unlikely candidate to actually follow the rule of law.