Active Now

Slartibartfast
Randy D
Discussion » Questions » Politics » Why was the deletion of e-mail from Hillary's private server and the destruction of data containing devices not considered obstruction of ju

Why was the deletion of e-mail from Hillary's private server and the destruction of data containing devices not considered obstruction of ju

stice and why was it necessary to prove intent to break the law rather than making a charge because the law was broken?

Posted - November 4, 2016

Responses


  • >>>>SHE IS GOING TO BE THE FIRST WOMAN PRESIDENT.

    Please be quiet, take a seat, and let herstory progress. Thank you.
      November 4, 2016 5:02 AM MDT
    2

  • 691
    Because bill clinton had to rush to meet lynch on that airport taramac to talk about golf and grandchildren of course. 2 days before they decided that they couldn't prove she intended to break the law. This post was edited by ITpro at November 4, 2016 6:25 AM MDT
      November 4, 2016 6:24 AM MDT
    0

  • 17600
    Illegal destruction and/or mutilation of government documents and records is enough to keep her from a government position.  The law says nothing about intent or that any harm came from the action.  It does say that governmental office can not again be held by the convicted, even after the three years in prison and a money fine.

    I don't read it as though one would be excused because they were just being careless (Mr. Comy's justification back in the Summer)


    U.S.Code, Title 18, Chapter 101, Section 2071

      November 5, 2016 1:11 AM MDT
    2

  • 17261
    Breaking News: "The law... ...It does say... ...not again be held by the convicted, even..."

    Convicted seems being your missing part... Oh, and you're welcome. Let me know if I can help you another time. ;-)
      November 5, 2016 1:21 AM MDT
    0

  • 17600
     You can search for commentary if you think it will help you understand.  Conviction is assumed when we talk about post-penalty.  With no conviction there is no penalty.    Maybe you didn't read 2071(b).    I provided the citation.  Don't worry.  A lot of people have trouble with legal documents and statutes.   That's why they hire people like me.


      November 5, 2016 1:47 AM MDT
    1

  • 17261
    No troubles at all, and I know people like you should I ever need them professionally. Do we need to give you a brush up on the fundamentals about assumed vs. not guilty before convicted by law? Now that makes me worried for the people hiring...
      November 5, 2016 2:01 AM MDT
    0

  • 17600
    You still don't get it.  No one but you is talking about guilty vs innocent.   When a statute provides a punishment, it is assumed that the person who will be punished has been convicted.  There is no presumption of guilt or innocence.  I don't know where you live but in America we have due process.  No one is punished under criminal law unless they confess guilt or are found guilty by a judge or jury.  One must read a statue understanding that the penalty is only brought when there has been a conviction.  I'm beginning to worry about you being hit by a car. You do look both ways before crossing, don't you?

    Good night. This post was edited by Thriftymaid at November 5, 2016 2:58 AM MDT
      November 5, 2016 2:49 AM MDT
    0

  • 17261
    Good to know you do know the process. I was worried for a moment with some of your remarks around this place. Have a lovely day/night.
      November 5, 2016 3:00 AM MDT
    0