PDA

View Full Version : Huma Abedin told Clinton her secret email account caused problems


ducks
10-22-2016, 10:30 PM
http://m.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/oct/21/more-clinton-classified-email-emerges/
Splits
10-22-2016, 11:35 PM
lol Washington Times
Reck
10-23-2016, 06:40 AM
lol Washington Times

Piece of shit thread but I think Hillary does sorround herself with shitty people that lack loyalty.

So far 3 of her top aides have shit talked her behind her back on these emails. I'd fired all of them if I was her.
Winehole23
10-23-2016, 09:51 AM
Hilary needed the feedback.

Pity for her she didn't heed it: her misuse of personal email for official business and subsequent deletions are going to dog her from day one as President.

If the Dems don't win the Senate (possible, but not likely) she'll be impeached.
Reck
10-23-2016, 10:07 AM
If the Dems don't win the Senate (possible, but not likely) she'll be impeached.

That word gets thrown around here willy nilly.

They cant just impeach someone without due cause. Just won't happen.

Just because they hate her guts doesn't constitute immediate impeachment.
Winehole23
10-23-2016, 10:26 AM
That word gets thrown around here willy nilly.

They cant just impeach someone without due cause. Just won't happen.Lying about a blowjob was enough to impeach Bill Clinton. Congressional majorities and an allegation of a high crime or misdemeanor -- such as destroying government records or lying about the destruction -- should be enough to get the ball rolling.
pgardn
10-23-2016, 11:17 AM
Piece of shit thread but I think Hillary does sorround herself with shitty people that lack loyalty.

So far 3 of her top aides have shit talked her behind her back on these emails. I'd fired all of them if I was her.

How about trying not to push all the rules to their limit? How about surrounding yourself with people that have some sense of legal decency instead of experts at skirting rules?
TheSanityAnnex
10-23-2016, 01:34 PM
How about trying not to push all the rules to their limit? How about surrounding yourself with people that have some sense of legal decency instead of experts at skirting rules?
:lol asking a known welcher his thoughts on following rules :lol
Reck
10-23-2016, 01:40 PM
:lol asking a known welcher his thoughts on following rules :lol

TSA how gay are you for me? :lol

Also, what's on the agenda today? Off day from your wacky conspiracies? :lmao your life.
Reck
10-23-2016, 01:41 PM
How about trying not to push all the rules to their limit? How about surrounding yourself with people that have some sense of legal decency instead of experts at skirting rules?

There are rules in politics?
spurraider21
10-23-2016, 01:53 PM
:lol "secret email account" that everybody knew about?
pgardn
10-23-2016, 01:53 PM
There are rules in politics?

Yes.

There are. And when you flaunt rules while Secretary of State as well... That's not good.
Capish?
Reck
10-23-2016, 01:58 PM
Yes.

There are. And when you flaunt rules while Secretary of State as well... That's not good.
Capish?

Who doesn't push the rules? And did she break any? She's not in jail so I'm going to assume no.
pgardn
10-23-2016, 02:04 PM
Who doesn't push the rules? And did she break any? She's not in jail so I'm going to assume no.

Exactly the point.

She uses lawyers to push everything to the limit.
If you think that's fine you are part of the problem.

And when ideologues opposite your persuasion do so you will remain silent?
TheSanityAnnex
10-23-2016, 02:34 PM
Exactly the point.

She uses lawyers to push everything to the limit.
If you think that's fine you are part of the problem.

And when ideologues opposite your persuasion do so you will remain silent?
Of course he thinks it's fine, he's a welcher.
Reck
10-23-2016, 05:18 PM
Of course he thinks it's fine, he's a welcher.

I think it's fine because I'm a welcher? That doesn't even begin to make sense. Try to insert some context in your posts, you moron.

This faggot is jumping in every thread randomly calling Welch. What a cuck.
Spurminator
10-23-2016, 06:30 PM
Lying about a blowjob was enough to impeach Bill Clinton. Congressional majorities and an allegation of a high crime or misdemeanor -- such as destroying government records or lying about the destruction -- should be enough to get the ball rolling.

Can you impeach for something that happened prior to being in office?

Certainly they can (and will) continue to investigate for past crimes but I would think their only option for impeachment would be if she lied under oath or committed some other crime related to those investigations.
Winehole23
10-23-2016, 07:31 PM
Can you impeach for something that happened prior to being in office? Probably so, if the House and Senate want to do it and it's colorable in Article II, Section 4 terms. The phrase "high Crimes and Misdemeanors" isn't well defined.

Also, the Senate has not adopted standard rules of evidence (p.5, subpart B, "Trial Procedure in the Senate"): http://www.senate.gov/reference/resources/pdf/98-806.pdf
Winehole23
10-23-2016, 07:36 PM
Since 1789, one principal question has persisted—how to define “high crimes and misdemeanors.” This question has been hotly debated by members of Congress, defense attorneys, and legal scholars from the first impeachment trial to the most recent. Were misdemeanors lesser crimes, or merely misconducts? Did a high crime or misdemeanor have to be a violation of written law? Over the years, "high crimes and misdemeanors" have been anything the prosecutors have wanted them to be. In an unsuccessful attempt to impeach Supreme Court Justice William O. Douglas in 1970, Representative Gerald Ford declared: "An impeachable offense is whatever a majority of the House of Representatives considers it to be at a given moment in history."http://www.senate.gov/artandhistory/history/common/briefing/Senate_Impeachment_Role.htm
Winehole23
10-23-2016, 07:37 PM
Narrow constructionists won a major victory when Supreme Court Justice Samuel Chase was acquitted in 1805, using as his defense the argument that the charges against him were not based on any indictable offense. President Andrew Johnson won acquittal with a similar defense in 1868. The first two convictions in the 20th century, however, those of Judge Robert Archbald in 1913 and Judge Halsted Ritter in 1936, neither of whom had committed indictable offenses, made it clear that the broad constructionists still carried considerable weight.Ibid..