We know they must have been evidence of wrongdoing because she destroyed them. Duh.
I know that your post is a week old, but I keeping seeing “probable cause” being thrown around. What gives you the idea that Congress requires “probable cause” to issue a subpoena?
What gives you the idea that a party doesn’t need a reason, they can just go fishing?
Hillary Clinton doesn’t engage in wrongdoing, at least not the illegal kind. However, she is rather fixated on avoiding anything embarrassing. She probably figures the content of those emails would do her more political damage than her lack of transparency. But no, I don’t suspect anything illegal. I just think that we’ll find that in 65,000 pages of emails she actually released, she managed to not say a single interesting thing.
Then there’s the simple problem that she doesn’t get to decide what’s work related. Someone from the State Department should have done that work, not her personal lawyers.
As is always the case with her, there’s nothing illegal, just a whole ton of shady. But hey, if you really, really hate government transparency, Clinton’s your candidate.
As is always the case with you, you have no support for that repeated slander. I do understand your and your party’s extreme frustration over never being able to prove what you know in your hearts to be true, but maybe it’s time to align your views with the world of fact, hmm?
Wilkinson v. United States 365 U.S. 399 (1961)
A subpoena is not the same thing as a warrant, and does not require probable cause. It is only subject to a general “reasonableness” standard.
ETA: D’Anconia, did you read your citation?
She’s a politician. Politicians don’t get the benefit of the doubt. When a politician does something non-transparent, it’s because they have something to hide.
OK then, change the word and the question remains.
Inapplicable. The question was about the reason, or reasonableness, of subpoenas issued as part of partisan fishing trips.
Remarkable that you have to resort to a McCarthyist ruling from the Red Scare to support your position, though.
Well, not really. The “reasonableness” standard is generally interpreted to mean there is some tenuous connection between the subpoena and some possible wrongdoing. It’s a lower standard than probable cause.
Then why single her out? Or even bring up the “point”, such as it is?
But there still has to be something, which is the point. A partisan fishing trip does not have even a tenuous connection to possible wrongdoing, except via the “logic” that someone named Clinton must have done something.
Um, she used a personal email account and decided which emails the State Department could keep. Do I get to decide which records the IRS has access to, and they have to assume I fully complied? She could have cleared all this up simply by having a government official go through her emails and determine which were personal and which were official. I wonder why she didn’t do that?
Because INOKIADDI. adaher’s posts make much more sense if you assume that he’s started from the standpoint of Obama/Clinton/some other Democrat is incompetent/shady/wrong and then he’s twisted reality into pretzels to support that view.
These are the elements required for a legally sufficient congressional subpoena:
1 .The committee investigation of the broad subject area must be authorized by its Chamber
-
The investigation must pursue “a valid legislative purpose” but does not need to involve legislation and does not need to specify the ultimate intent of Congress
-
The specific inquiries must be pertinent to the subject matter area that has been authorized for investigation
I think it’s you who are twisting yourself into a pretzel. The majority view, in the press and in the polls, is that this was inappropriate. As much fun as I have trying to convince liberals to step out of their bubble, I actually don’t need to convince anyone. Most people are already convinced. It’s Hillary and her helpful SDMB surrogates who are going to have to persuade people.
Not perzackly. He merely wants to ensure that the business of diplomacy be as transparent as possible. Clearly, the business of diplomacy would be much more effective if, say, Hillary’s opinions that the French President was a feckless but harmless old poofter who reeked of elderberries were publicly known. Or if she thought that Netanyahu was a bloodthirsty warmonger negotiating with Palistinians who didn’t have the good sense God gave a goose.
Such transparency could have nothing but a positive effect of refreshing candor, especially when you consider how casual world leaders are about their personal dignity.
Ah, yes. You are referring to the storm of outrage and fury sweeping the nation like mildfire?
You’re the one who keeps bringing Vince Foster into the Hilary Clinton and the Terrible, Horrible, No Good, Very Bad Personal E-mail Account thread.
If YOU wish to have a Congressional committee investigate Foster’s emails, you’ll need to contact one, or all, of your three representatives in the U.S. Congress.
I suspect that you’re simply trying to derail any conversation about Ol’ Hillary’s non-transparency.