Boehner Says House May Subpoena Private Hillary Clinton Email Servers
Source: The Ed Show-MSNBC
House Speaker John Boehner, R-OH, said Hillary Clinton violated the law when she used her personal email address to conduct business while serving as Secretary of State, adding that the House may vote to subpoena Clintons private email server if she doesnt offer it up voluntarily.
All options are on the table, Boehner said in an interview with Bloomberg. If we need to do that, we may have to. The idea that [Clinton] was going to use her own server and do official business on it goes against every transparency issue that the president likes to tout, Boehner continued.
At some point, they just cant ignore the fact that there a lot of public documents on this server that the American people have a right to see. Boehner said it is important for Clinton to hand over her emails to the State Departments Inspector General, especially to clear up what happened with the attack in Benghazi in 2012.
Its important for the American people to know the truth about what happened in Benghazi, he said. Its important to know what was going on at the State Department before, during and after the events that occurred in Libya.
Read more: http://wegoted.com/2015/04/boehner-says-house-may-subpoena-clinton-emails/
another overreach, just like Ken Star & impeachment which the Tea Party Wingnuts will pay dearly for at the polls...
geomon666
(7,512 posts)Sabotage another election for yourselves.
big_dog
(4,144 posts)go for it weeper!
ananda
(28,779 posts)Next came Fraud, and he had on,
Like Lord Eldon, an ermined gown ;
His big tears, for he wept well,
Turned to mill-stones as they fell.
And the little children, who
Round his feet played to and fro,
Thinking every tear a gem,
Had their brains knocked out by them.
Rosa Luxemburg
(28,627 posts)Maybe we will find out what really went on under George Bush 9/11, yellow cakes... but they probably have been wiped clean?
SummerSnow
(12,608 posts)Yo_Mama_Been_Loggin
(107,063 posts)Boehner keeps blacking out and forgetting things have been done already. The 50+ attempts to repeal Obamacare for example.
SummerSnow
(12,608 posts)I bet he can't find his office sometimes
msongs
(67,193 posts)candelista
(1,986 posts)No point in subpoenaing it.
big_dog
(4,144 posts)lol! let that fool go on a fishing expedition for all of the world to see
chillfactor
(7,566 posts)just WHEN are you actually going to get some work done to help the American people? Never? Thought so....
C Moon
(12,188 posts)What a useless lump of excrement.
Rosa Luxemburg
(28,627 posts)Let us see Colin Powell's private email. Democrats should now be asking for Powell's.
Kingofalldems
(38,359 posts)NYC_SKP
(68,644 posts)Never mind the Warren part, here are 4 reasons someone other than Hillary needs to be selected to carry the mantle.
1. Warren is the only national politician today from either party who conveys a sense of outrage over our current deteriorating national situation. Her passion is her signature calling card in a time when all the other candidates for president seem to have passion only for themselves and their candidacies.
2. At a recent 12-person in-depth focus group in Denver conducted by Peter Hart and reported in The Washington Post by Dan Balz, the only national politician who was viewed favorably was Warren even by some of the Republican voters in the focus group.
3. Why? Because she is the only politician who is even talking about the powerlessness of the average person and the seemingly too powerful corporate and Wall Street entities.
4. This issue cuts across all political lines. It is the issue that catapulted President Teddy Roosevelt into the political hall of fame. His trust busting led to today's anti-trust regulations and the belief that the federal government's role is to act as a neutral referee to ensure a fair playing field. But no one today believes the feds are neutral or fair. Instead, big government is seen as corrupt and as "rigged" as big business.
http://thehill.com/blogs/pundits-blog/presidential-campaign/231599-why-warren-will-run-against-clinton-in-2016
Kingofalldems
(38,359 posts)in a witch hunt against a Democrat.
NYC_SKP
(68,644 posts)We are conducting a job interview, Hillary is one of the candidates.
Whether it's her or someone else, they need to be vetted by us so that we don't get any surprises.
I'm very concerned about the candidate's ability to survive her scandals.
I'm very concerned with how she might rule if elected.
Finally, I am concerned with whether or not she can beat the opposition after all that she'll be put through and the impact of scandals, some of which may not even have been revealed!
For you and for me, we should keep an open mind to other candidates.
I do this for you and everyone in the party, and for the future of our nation.
Kingofalldems
(38,359 posts)karynnj
(59,474 posts)If the former, it was against a sitting President and about all that came out before the election was the arrest of the burglars - and info on their ties to anti Castro movements. I mentioned it a few times when canvasing for McGovern, but no one not already on our side believed the President of the US could have known anything. Very little was known pre election.
If you mean White water, that came up - in the NYT - only shortly before the general election. At that point, Perot had looked like a looney tunes character when he left the race and then returned and Bush was at about 33% approval. A vague, not clear cut possibly sketchy investment by Clinton could at worst have made him at worst the best of three bad choices. (In fact, it did little, and of the three, ONLY Clinton had enthusiastic crowds in October/November.)
The timing of this is entirely different and curious. I assume that the book's roll out was determined by the RW publisher - not that the story would break elsewhere. Now, hard as it is, put yourself in their shoes -- why now?
If they thought HRC could be more easily beaten than another Democrat, they would have waited until after the nomination was hers -- and used it to give their candidate a better chance.
I suspect it might be that it is because they DO think she would be tough to beat and want various stories to sink in tarnishing the image of both her and Bill Clinton. (Could it also be they want to make it harder to credit Bill Clinton with anything he has done post President? )
At any rate, I would not look to either white water or watergate to guess the impact.
Politicalboi
(15,189 posts)Now they're using it. What did she expect? She probably knew she would run in either 2012 or 2016. Why on earth would she give them something to run on? Saying "They did it too" isn't good enough. She's been the target of the GOP for over 20 years. I'm not saying she's hiding stuff, but she must have known this e-mail shit wouldn't pass the smell test with this GOP bunch. Doesn't she remember the Rose Law firm papers, Whitewater. I know they led nowhere, but she should have handled this from the beginning.
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)No way for Boner to go on a fishing expedition
big_dog
(4,144 posts)and destroy the Wingnuts standing in the polls, rope-a dope style
Rosa Luxemburg
(28,627 posts)Thinkingabout
(30,058 posts)ananda
(28,779 posts)What law makes this illegal, particularly since many
prominent Reeps have done this and still do ...
... and since many many emails of GW Bush, Jeb Bush,
and Mitt Romney have just conveniently disappeared.
Hmm ???
Renew Deal
(81,801 posts)AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)RNC mating call. Ugh
Optical.Catalyst
(1,355 posts)The repukes have demanded this server more times than I can remember. They are not going to get it. They can all go pound sand.
davidpdx
(22,000 posts)being the judge, jury, and executor. While we always think they will pay for their stupidity at the polls it never happens. Somehow they continue to get away with this shit.
onecaliberal
(32,471 posts)What they were emailing about before and after 9-11 and at the time the war was not going so well.
leveymg
(36,418 posts)Sorry - you'll have to subpoena the NSA's servers. Now, that might be really interesting . . . Go for it, dudes!
rtracey
(2,062 posts)And Colin Powell, who did the same thing....did he break the law?
Rosa Luxemburg
(28,627 posts)until now.....