HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » General Discussion (Forum) » A totally different quest...

Sat Mar 14, 2015, 10:30 PM

A 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.

17 replies, 1413 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread

Response to sadoldgirl (Original post)

Sat Mar 14, 2015, 10:39 PM

1. IMO, her server is government property and should be taken into custody and examined.

 

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NYC_SKP (Reply #1)

Sat Mar 14, 2015, 10:43 PM

2. I love you,

 

but,

P.S. I don't think she's running.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to KMOD (Reply #2)

Sat Mar 14, 2015, 10:51 PM

4. I love you, too!

 

And, damn, I hope you're right!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NYC_SKP (Reply #4)

Sat Mar 14, 2015, 10:56 PM

6. Okay, but I have not heard from

most people about a plan B.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to sadoldgirl (Reply #6)

Sat Mar 14, 2015, 10:58 PM

9. Hell, we don't even have a plan A yet!

 

The media and polls report otherwise, but in point of fact we don't have a slate of primary candidates.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NYC_SKP (Reply #9)

Sat Mar 14, 2015, 11:31 PM

15. Well, that is true, but very heavily

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?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to sadoldgirl (Reply #15)

Sun Mar 15, 2015, 01:38 AM

17. It would indeed, and I don't know many who want to see another Clinton or Bush.

 

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to KMOD (Reply #2)

Sat Mar 14, 2015, 10:58 PM

8. that would make me happy

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NYC_SKP (Reply #1)

Sat Mar 14, 2015, 10:44 PM

3. Yes, I understand all that, even

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NYC_SKP (Reply #1)

Sat Mar 14, 2015, 10:54 PM

5. Not a lawyer...the legalities are unclear to me. She made the documents before

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?


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to HereSince1628 (Reply #5)

Sat Mar 14, 2015, 10:59 PM

10. Thanks, but I wonder if

the repugs will wait with her appearance
until, oh, let's say June.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to sadoldgirl (Reply #10)

Sat Mar 14, 2015, 11:03 PM

11. My guess is they'll try to make it as damaging as possible...

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NYC_SKP (Reply #1)

Sat Mar 14, 2015, 10:58 PM

7. Why is there a different rule for Hillary than others, employees has the right to decide what is

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Thinkingabout (Reply #7)

Sat Mar 14, 2015, 11:04 PM

12. I know you for a very strong supporter

of Hillary, and that is fine. My question is more of
a legal one , yet totally due to politics.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to sadoldgirl (Reply #12)

Sat Mar 14, 2015, 11:17 PM

13. She should be subject to the same allowance as other employees to decide

Which emails are personal. She should not have to copy the personal emails and turn them over for others to inspect.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Thinkingabout (Reply #13)

Sat Mar 14, 2015, 11:25 PM

14. Allright, I understand this; my question

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to sadoldgirl (Original post)

Sun Mar 15, 2015, 01:13 AM

16. Private citizens are subject to Congressional subpoenas, they can bring lawyers with them,

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).



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread