The probable cause has always been that they’re Clintons.
They *must *be doing something shady, because look at all those investigations, amirite, huh?
“You might be a terrorist – no search warrant needed!”
OR
“Yes, there’s a search warrant, but it’s a secret and we don’t have to show it to you. We didn’t expect you to be home. So here’s what we’ll do – we’ll go away for now, watch you more carefully and search your place when we’re SURE you’re gone. You’ll never even know!”
Do you have a probable cause for one? Or are you just hoping to find something?
A U.S. Ambassador was murdered. Congress held an inquiry as to what had occurred. Something Congress has the power to do. Congress requested documents and interviewed witnesses. Congress did not receive all of the documents they had requested and, IIRC, Ol’ Hillary said she couldn’t appear because she was dizzy and confused. Something about a bumping her head?
During congressional inquiry after congressional inquiry, the investigators were not informed that all of the State Dept. documents were not actually in the possession of the State Dept… Ol’ Hillary had sole possession of thousands of emails. What a shocker that was. As it turns out, it was a good thing that the investigators kept asking questions.
Congress still has the same probable cause they’ve always had. The only difference between then and now is the discovery of where the requested documents are located.
Which previously asked question are you requesting an answer to? Please be as specific as possible. I could supply you with paper records, just as Ol’ Hillary supplied to the Congressional Committee.
Multiple ones, all reaching the same conclusion based on the facts. As you know.
C’mon now. :rolleyes:
And that is?
Since you seem genuinely confused, “Is fishing for something you can use in campaign attacks also a good thing?”
You’re convinced, based on no evidence whatsoever, that she’s hiding something rather than telling the fishermen to fuck off. What do you think that might be? Her order to have the ambassador killed the way she had Vince Foster killed?
Oh, come now! There is no evidence that she deployed Islamic terrorists to kill Vince Foster! In fact, there is no evidence that she had a hand in it at all! She’s that good!
I actually heard it claimed, by a normally-sensible person, during one of the many years Ken Starr spent writing a porn novel on the taxpayer dime, that the reason he hadn’t been able to find proof of Bill Clinton’s guilt of something was that Clinton was so good at hiding the evidence.
Perhaps the e-mails would just show she ordered the recall of the motorcycle airdrop.
As a factual matter, does anyone know why earlier Benghazi investigators never asked themselves, “Gee, why aren’t there any emails to or from a Hillary Clinton state.gov email address?” Why didn’t this whole flap over the lack of a government email account come out in the course of the Benghazi investigations?
Vince Foster? Are you suggesting that Ol’ Hillary is hiding government documents in Vince Foster’s grave?
All of the facts were not available to previous Congressional Committees. They were unaware that Ol’ Hillary was storing government documents offsite. As you know.
*December 18th, 2012
State Department: Clinton not dodging Benghazi hearings
By Adam Levine
Secretary of State Hillary Clinton is “on the mend” and working from home, the State Department’s spokeswoman said Tuesday.
Clinton had been recovering from a bout of stomach flu last week when she fainted and ended up with a concussion. Clinton informed the Senate Foreign Relations and House Foreign Affairs committees this weekend that she would be unable to testify at upcoming hearings about the deadly events in Benghazi, Libya, at the advice of her doctors. In her place, deputies Thomas Nides and Bill Burns will testify on Thursday.*
http://security.blogs.cnn.com/2012/12/18/working-from-home-clinton-on-the-mend/
Are you fishing for Vince Foster quotes? You seem to have plenty of your own. If you’re claiming Congress is fishing in government records, and those government records happen to be in the sole possession of Ol’ Hillary Clinton, then I agree that Congress should demand government records, and Ol’ Hillary should have made them available for the 1st inquiry.
Because it was irrelevant?
Now you’re going to want a Congressional investigation into that too, right?
That was actually my point. Are you even reading the thread?
Just to be clear, if evidence is destroyed, and the destruction of that evidence wasn’t obviously illegal, that means our guys are in the clear?
Just need to know for future reference.
The trouble is you’re using the word “evidence” in two different ways there.
Once material has been identified in a subpoena as evidence, then it’s a crime to destroy it.
But it isn’t a crime to destroy material that might, some day, have some incriminating effect. Say you bought a big bag of illegal (depending by region) fireworks. Then, out of concern this might get you in trouble, you soak them all in a bucket of water, destroying them (without discharging them.) This is not illegal. This is still “destroying evidence,” but it is not identified as such in any investigation.
I agree. That’s why I stressed legal destruction of what might be evidence. If the emails were still available, they would likely be requested by a Congressional committee and she would probably have to provide them(at the very least, she wouldn’t be able to legally destroy them). By destroying them beforehand, she avoided that problem. And by making sure she had a private server, she made sure that her ISP couldn’t recover them either.
Quite convenient and very clever. But if that’s the rules of the game, I want my guys to be able to play it too.
Believe me, your guys have been playing that game for a long, long time.
Eighteen minute gap, anyone?
Yes, and the proper response was assume perfidy. So why do we have a different standard for Clinton, especially since she was part of the prosecution team on that case?
Oh yeah, that would be because she’s your only hope so you have no choice but to carry water for her.
What laws did Hillary break in her handling of her email?
How could anyone be prosecuted without evidence? Not sure what this has to do with Hillary, unless you’re positively asserting (without any evidence :)) that Hillary destroyed evidence of wrongdoing.