Personal property?
Hillary Clinton used her “personal property” to store government related
emails without forwarding those emails to a government server. That is illegal.
Am I a lawyer that can tell you one way or the other? No. I can’t.
But the Government related emails belong to the government. Period.
Hillary knew exactly what she was doing as evidenced by your question
to me. But why does that preclude Gowdy not even trying to get that server.
Now I have a question for you. Gowdy recently issued a supeona for the emails only. Who is going to enforce that grandstanding email supeona from Gowdy?
So you don’t even know that Gowdy has the authority to seize personal property, but you attack him anyway. Regardless of the fact that H. Clinton used a personal email server for government business, he cannot issue a legitimate subpoena to seize it unless he has the authority. It is apparent to me that he only has the authority to subpoena government business records directly related to his investigation, not any and all emails (and email servers) that would also likely be personal and private in nature.
There may very well be a criminal legal case (I sure hope so!) for the fact that H. Clinton did not forward government business related emails to a .gov account so that they would archived as required by law that puts her server at risk of seizure. But that is for criminal prosecutors (“Special Prosecutor”/DOJ/FBI) to pursue.
Regarding your attack against Gowdy that he only issued the email subpoena for “grandstanding” after the NYT “broke” the news is, IMHO, also unwarranted. The fact that Gowdy was going to issue the email subpoena was well known by the Dems on the investigation committee months ago. As is standard operating procedure for Dems, they leaked this to their liberal news media lapdogs in an attempt to front run the news and try to spin it in their favor. Dems have done this time and time again over the years. Rep. Trey Gowdy issued the email subpoena on his own original time schedule. The timing had nothing to do with the Dems/NYT pre-emptive “breaking news”.