It’s a matter of how you reached the conclusion that Cruz was storing his government, and personal emails, on the same, non-government server.
If you pulled it out of your thin air, then no, you would have no grounds to get a warrant. If you were following a trail of evidence that led to Hillary’s server, oops … that led to Cruz’s server, then you might be able to convince a judge to issue a warrant.
It would be nice if we could all get along, but I prefer it when politicians don’t get along. The only way we, the voting public, find out what Politician A is up to is when Politician B rats them out to the media, or to the public.
When politicians get along, they divide up the taxpayer funds between themselves, and no one is the wiser.
You sound like you are building a legal case, with probable cause and circumstantial evidence justifying a warrant; is there a legal question here? Since using a personal server was not against the rules at the time she did it, she certainly is under no obligation to cooperate with a Republican fishing expedition, any more than Ted Cruz should prostrate himself to the Democrats. If she says she turned over all the official emails, Republicans really have no legal basis to dispute it. That they don’t trust her is really irrelevant.
Irrelevant? The investigation continues, and it appears that Hillary will, once again, be called to testify. Sounds relevant to me. Maybe Hillary will bump her head again and be unable to attend?
The Congressional committee requested all relevant documents. Apparently, they weren’t aware that the government didn’t actually have possession of all of the relevant documents. It’s been discovered that some of the relevant documents were only stored on Hillary’s server. Now, the investigators want those as well.
Hillary doesn’t have to fully cooperate. Hillary doesn’t have to be transparent. Hillary doesn’t have to impress the independent voters. Hillary doesn’t have to be the next POTUS.
Shit, guys, this is the best you can do? Hillary’s a politician, pimps avoid politicians for fear of having their values corrupted! Been in the thick of it for forty years and more, and this is the only dirt you can get? Better worry that common folks are going to start trying to touch the hem of her dress to cure afflictions.
Yeah, but you have a very low bar. Can the House Republicans keep it up for 22 months, and will it keep the rapt attention of the voters? Might work if it was October 2016, but as usual, Republicans have suffered premature expostulation.
If pimps, as you imply, are more honorable and honest than our politicians then it is OUR responsibility to fix that problem.
We need to tell the politicians that they must be honest. We need to tell the politicians that they cannot get away with questionable behavior.
Yet that will never happen as long as partisans rush to defend any politicians who spouts the correct sound bites.
Clinton decided to combine her personal and work email on one system. As soon as she made that choice she opened herself up to exactly this problem. An honest and responsable person would say ‘Oops, I screwed up. It was a bad decision and I understand how this looks so here is all the email’.
Instead we get ‘How dare you question me! I gave you everything I swear!’. And you defend this behaviour for one reason and one reason only and that is because Clinton is on your side. Not because it is right. Not because it is wise.
Slee
Again I point out that Clinton is not on my side.
Now, let’s explore your hypothetical honest and responsible person.
Let’s further assume that several years ago, she was the target of a highly politically motivated investigation, one that sought to connect her to all manner of crimes of which she was innocent. Let’s say that she was made very aware, at that time, that the questioners she faced were not operating in good faith.
Now, let’s return to today.
Does she in fact say, “Oops, I screwed up. It was a bad decision and I understand how this looks so here is all the email?” Or does she more prudently say nothing, knowing her conduct was not illegal and believing that her inquisitors are, once again, acting in bad faith?
I think anyone with her prior experience would be an utter fool to cooperate unreservedly. She committed no crime. She knows that the inquiries now are not arising from a good faith belief in some deleterious loss of government information, but rather from personal and political animus.
I think an honest *and sensible *person would follow a policy designed to avoid the need to say “I gave you all the e-mails that were relevent. Trust me on this”. The fact that such a person instead chose a course that made it appear at the very least that she had something to hide, means that even if she was honest she was very tone-deaf as to appearances.
Regards,
Shodan
Don’t you think it could possibly be the case that, knowing that her implacable opposition will always try to make her appear immoral (cf. Vince Foster and Benghazi), and that the majority of American voters see them the same way, that therefore frustrating those efforts and telling them to fuck off is both the most principled and the most politically-astute approach?
You certainly do see her, not your party’s leadership, as the less responsible and less moral. But you’re in the minority on that, and it would serve you well to try to understand why. You see a good example above of how it’s done.
If Hilary Clinton thinks responding to investigations of her mistakes with “fuck you” is politically astute, then I encourage her to continue.
“The majority of voters”, you say?
Cite. So it appears you are mistaken - since the donations scandal, and the e-mail scandal, the majority of voters do not see her the same way you do, and responding “fuck you” isn’t politically astute.
Regards,
Shodan
It’s been working fine for years. The longer you guys keep yelling “Benghazeeee!”, which is what this latest “investigation” is, the less hope any Republican has of seeing the inside of the Oval Office without an invitation. After all these years one might think that truth would have started to sink in.
It’s just 20 more months to the election, and you guys are *still *determined not to give anyone a reason to support you then, not merely scream hatred. Still. It’s amazing, and sad, at the same time.
I’m not sure that some people aren’t trying to touch the hem of her pants suit. 
So she drops ten points, and a majority think she is untrustworthy, and you think it is working fine.
OK, then - like I said, I hope very much she continues to respond to each new scandal with “fuck you”.
Regards,
Shodan
And she’s still polling well ahead of anybody you got. How do you account for that? By claiming you haven’t screamed “Benghazzeeeeee!!!” for long enough yet? Or that you need to remind people of Vince Foster? Denouncing Hillarycare might do it; how about some of that too? Or maybe some childish nicknames; those are always worth a giggle to you, aren’t they?
You *might *actually make some headway by coming up with reasons for voters to actually support you, by giving them reasons to think you are adults who can be trusted with some authority. But that would mean some hard work and some compromises and some putting of country before party, wouldn’t it? Oh well.
Name recognition, and the fact that the election isn’t for a year and a half in the future.
Again - if you think she’s got the election wrapped up, and her strategy of “fuck you” to any mention of her mistakes, lies, attempts at cover up, intermingled with assertions that she isn’t really rich and we should just trust her, is working, then fine - I hope very much that she thinks so.
Don’t change a thing, Hillary - in eight or nine years you will have another shot at stealing the White House furniture!
Regards,
Shodan
Well, SOMEONE’S Clinton Derangement Syndrome is still going strong…
That’s the only result of all those years of trumped-up “investigations” and hate campaigns? Her name is recognized? No, friend, she’s known for far more than her name. Try harder.
Yes, you do have that much more time to yell “Benghaazzzzeeee!!!”. Maybe it will even work by then, hmm? 
Can’t beat somebody with nobody, as the old saying goes. You can hate her all you want, but if you don’t have somebody who can look better, then you’ve accomplished less than nothing. You’ve been asked several times who you have who can beat a person as unworthy as her, and you still don’t have an answer. Maybe you should work on that problem instead?
Yes, do please keep that up.
Were you actually aware of the topic of this thread?
Regards,
Shodan
Don’t forget, they’ve got most of the money on their side - and so, many of them believe, is God.