Posted on 03/31/2015 2:23:30 PM PDT by afraidfortherepublic
SHE COMMITTED A CRIME. And if SHE wasn't the one who deleted the emails, she STILL committed a crime by ALLOWING IT TO HAPPEN. 'Willful negligence', 'obstruction', 'destruction of evidence' or some such act.
Of course she is lying, obfuscating and covering someone’s ginormous butt.
Subpoena the emails from her recipients. They’ll have all the previous messages. Compare them to what she released.
That’s right. They can nail her if they just do it.
“I’m sick and tired of.....”
The GOPe has fouled up every time it has tangled with the Clintons by giving up and not following through with proper investigation and prosecution. As a result of the GOPe displaying weakness and timidity, the Clintons have been able to paint the GOP as a bunch of smear artists bent on the politics of personal destruction.
It’s a shame a majority of Americans share that view as well. Expect Hillary’s poll numbers to go up as a result of all of this.
Hillary and her legal mercenary Kendall have less wiggle room than they think, providing that Congress really has interest. She’s already committed a crime.
“... The spoliation inference is a negative evidentiary inference that a finder of fact can draw from a party’s destruction of a document or thing that is relevant to an ongoing or reasonably foreseeable civil or criminal proceeding: the finder of fact can review all evidence uncovered in as strong a light as possible against the spoliator and in favor of the opposing party. ...”
and
“... Adverse inference is a legal inference, adverse to the concerned party, drawn from silence or absence of requested evidence. It is part of evidence codes based on common law in various countries.
According to Lawvibe, “the ‘adverse inference’ can be quite damning at trial. Essentially, when plaintiffs try to present evidence on a point essential to their case and can’t because the document has been destroyed (by the defendant), the jury can infer that the evidence would have been adverse to (the defendant), and adopt the plaintiff’s reasonable interpretation of what the document would have said ... “
She was oh so diligent when she was going after Nixon on Watergate. Show her as much respect and deference as she showed to a sitting President. She needs a taste of her own medicine.
She can't recall. There's no evidence she did. She can't remember. She has no recollection of doing so. That's like so yesterday dude. She did not have sex with that server.
Did Bill inhale?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.