General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsA totally different question regarding HRC's e-mails
Now she is a private citizen. Does she have to go to
that stupid committee if she gets a supena(?) from
it to appear?
Can she just hire a lawyer to represent her?
I realize that most of us would have to go, but
is her case so special that she could evade it?
What are the rules for a reasonable refusal? I think
that this is exactly what is planned, and wonder
about the problems coming possibly with it.
NYC_SKP
(68,644 posts)Your question points out the reality of this, she is a now a citizen.
Yet, she's in possession of records related to government business, OUR business (not hers).
That she co-mingled private and public official messages only means that she should be REQUIRED to keep her private stuff, to make copies of them, and turn over the entire mess of ALL emails and data to the government.
She's got it backwards, acting on her own to determine what to delete, what to keep, and what to turn over to the State Department.
This is a bunch of bullshit and it really disqualifies her and I hope it's the end of her candidacy.
We can do, we HAVE to do, so much better.
but,
P.S. I don't think she's running.
NYC_SKP
(68,644 posts)And, damn, I hope you're right!
sadoldgirl
(3,431 posts)most people about a plan B.
NYC_SKP
(68,644 posts)The media and polls report otherwise, but in point of fact we don't have a slate of primary candidates.
sadoldgirl
(3,431 posts)disputed on this forum for exactly those reasons.
But would it not serve the Democrats to think
about certain problems and difficulties with
this apparently single choice?
NYC_SKP
(68,644 posts)Pollsters and news media have created this situation, largely, and Clinton herself pushing the weight of her celebrity around, the effect being a corruption of the intent of the framers of the rules of this nation in selecting new leaders.
840high
(17,196 posts)sadoldgirl
(3,431 posts)though I am a computer idiot.
My fear is that she may be forced to appear again
in front of this idiotic committee.
That would not look very good to anyone but totally
devoted supporters.
HereSince1628
(36,063 posts)the law was in place, but she has kept them after the law was in place. What law, and State dept rules for identifying and preserving federal documents for the archives apply is beyond me.
The r's will attempt to prove that evidence of absence is evidence of withholding evidence. I think that will prove to become irresolvable, a perfectly good solution for the r's who just want to cast aspersions against her...
Setting all that aside, has the first rule of scandals been run to ground? Has someone followed the money? Servers and software seem to need maintenance...which costs money. I would suppose that when the security of federal documents is involved, the people who do that charge more than the Geek Squad at Best Buy.
Are we sure that the financial arrangements, if any, between State and exPresident Clinton's office all meet whatever sniff tests would suggest it was on the up and up?
sadoldgirl
(3,431 posts)the repugs will wait with her appearance
until, oh, let's say June.
HereSince1628
(36,063 posts)I would think she can attempt to just be deposed by committee counsel... but if having her appear before some junior senator is more damaging that's likely what will happen.
Thinkingabout
(30,058 posts)Private and what isn't. She has it exactly correct, she picked out her personal emails. To be honest with you, the RW email scandal has not affected my position with Hillary, not even on the slightest so I doubt it is going to affect others decisions.
sadoldgirl
(3,431 posts)of Hillary, and that is fine. My question is more of
a legal one , yet totally due to politics.
Thinkingabout
(30,058 posts)Which emails are personal. She should not have to copy the personal emails and turn them over for others to inspect.
sadoldgirl
(3,431 posts)relates to the possibility, if not probability, of her
being asked again to appear in front of that
committee, and if she can avoid that. Or even
that she may want it to make clear what the
intentions are.
PoliticAverse
(26,366 posts)and can invoke their 5th amendment rights not to testify (as Lois Lerner did recently, see
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/lois-lerner-pleads-the-fifth-again-doesnt-testify-on-irs-targeting/ )
If Congress subpoenas a member of the Executive branch of government the President might
claim they are immune from the subpoena due to 'executive privilege' (a claim which might
be challenged by Congress and need to be resolved by the courts).