Posted on 03/13/2016 8:33:18 AM PDT by Libloather
**SNIP**
In normal civil litigation practice, when documents are sought for a trial, the parties must issue “litigation holds” to preserve all documents likely to be asked for, well before they are actually demanded and, in some cases, even before a lawsuit is filed. Failure to preserve such documents results in sanctions by the court.
If parties want to withhold documents, they still preserve them, so that the court can eventually make a decision about whether they have to be produced. As a former corporate attorney, Clinton must have known those rules. Her action prevented a neutral third party from ever learning what the emails she erased contained. She was, effectively, acting as the judge in her own case.
Lost in the detail of how the server was set up and messages classified is this fundamental, and undisputed point: Hillary Clinton destroyed possible evidence, on her judgment alone. Richard Nixon might have served out his presidency if he had burned the Watergate tapes. Instead, he held them, argued he did not have to turn them over, and lost. Hillary Clinton was a staff attorney on the Watergate Committee, and she has learned from that experience. Effectively, she has burned the tapes.
(Excerpt) Read more at ocregister.com ...
Apparently she didn’t learn it well enough
I’ll bet she loves the “Delete” button a hell of a lot better than all of those old primitive shredders she burned up back in the 70s, 80s and 90s.
Had she stuck with plan “A”, it would have worked. Once they got up to December of 2008 (after election) and she forming her staff....she wanted Sid Blumenthal as her adviser. The Obama team refused to allow Sid being hired. She came back four weeks later...trying to hire Sid as a contractor instead of a GS worker. No go, the Obama team had some reason for Sid not being around.
So Hillary dropped plan “A” with the server business, and used plan “B” which mean it would also (beside helping her dump evidence)....it would help provide a funnel of info from the server to Sid. Of course, Sid needed to read the classified to tell Hillary what to do. So the staff made the stupid mistake.....cut and paste classified onto the emails for Sid’s benefit.
All of this done....because Hillary really didn’t know anything about the job, and needed Sid to guide her daily on the task.
Amusingly enough....the White House contributed to this because if they’d agreed to hire Sid....he would have had real classified access and no real reason for the cut-and-paste business.
We are where we are today....because the WH wouldn’t hire Sid Blumenthal for a real gov’t job.
The guy who wrote this piece isn’t keep up with the news .... Hilly may have learned the lesson of destroying evidence but her execution of that plan was flawed. Per Catherine Herridge, whose reporting has been impeccable, the “wipe” was less than professional & the FBI has recovered those emails.
In 2013, Hillary spoke at the Children's Defense Fund's 40th Anniversary Celebration in Washington on September 30th.
search Hillary Laughs Daily Mail
***
http://dailycaller.com/2014/07/08/hillary-clinton-refuses-to-apologize-for-laughing-about-12-year-old-rape-victim-she-maligned-in-court/
***
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2014/06/20/exclusive-hillary-clinton-took-me-through-hell-rape-victim-says.html
Interesting take. And seems to fit the timeline nicely
That was an easy decision for the WH. They know how Sid operates and where his loyalty resides. They wanted him out of the loop.
Of course Sid should be in jail for trafficking in secrete information. There is virtually no mention of the laws he had to have broken as a private citizen.
We still don’t know who hired Craig Livingstone?
That was hillary
I have long thought that Hillary’s need for someone to quietly tell her what to do was a factor in the e-mail scheme, and that both purposes and methods of the scheme evolved opportunistically over time. Assuming you weren’t saying it with tongue in cheek, attributing the whole mess to H being denied the in house services of Blumenthal ignores her primary motives (secrecy, avoiding oversight, Clinton Foundation rackets, etc.) in which B was a subsidiary player.
I suspect the WH did not want Blumenthal to have anything to do with foreign policy for reasons good as well as selfish. One wonders if Hillary was instructed not to involve him in State business any way. That would be a good question for the “press” to ask Obama.
One other problem . . . they didn’t have dual backup systems in Nixon’s day.
It is odd...twice that she tried to get him hired onto the staff...twice rebuffed by the WH. They had some negative impression of Sid Blumenthal. It would be, I agree, a great question to ask the President to see if any of his hostility shows.
So much for the MSM smartest woman in the world.
Source of antipathy to Blumenthal might be:
1) personal (since B isn’t called Sid Vicious for nothing, he might have crossed Obama, Axelrod, Rahm Emmanuel, Plouffe, or Jarrett in ways they ain’t forgetting);
2) political (to limit Hillary’s powerbase of loyalists within the administration working for her interests against those of the Obama crowd); or,
3) meritorious (B. would cause trouble in DoS as an amateur and loose cannon with an inflated view of his abilities; B’s a crooked play-ya who can’t be trusted; B’s a security risk.
... and because Hillary was totally unqualified to be SoS.
. . . except that Sarbanes-Oxley, which Senator Clinton voted for, makes it illegal to delete computer information if there is the possibility that doing so could avert legal troubles.. . . but I have a hard time getting involved too much in the detail. The reality is that, as is well known, presidents are not allowed to keep presents from foreign dignitaries . . . because the Constitution forbids it. The trouble (on its face) is, that that constitutional prohibitionapplied to Hillary as SecState and, very arguably, to the Clinton Foundation and to the Clinton marriage, in both of which organizations Hillary was a principal while they were receiving emoluments and gifts from foreign governments and she held an “office of profit or trust under” the United States.
- Article 1 Section 9:
- No title of nobility shall be granted by the United States: and no person holding any office of profit or trust under them, shall, without the consent of the Congress, accept of any present, emolument, office, or title, of any kind whatever, from any king, prince, or foreign state
She did?
Seems more like the world's smartest woman effed up royally.
And her stock "total amnesia" defense can't possibly work this time!
The UFC has been pestering Dem veteran influential female elected criminals for help out of the hole she's dug for herself. When are those other elected criminals, Pelosi, Feinstein and Co. going to tell the Ugly Fat Cow she's on her own?
Unless, of course those FBI files may be more useful against fully entrenched criminals...
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.