Hi, Shrewd!        Login  
Shrewd'm.com 
A merry & shrewd investing community
Best Of PoliticsBest OfAll BoardsThe Shrewd’m WeeklyLearn to InvestHow to Become Shrewd
Search
Shrewd'm.com Merry shrewd investors
Search
Best Of PoliticsBest OfAll BoardsThe Shrewd’m WeeklyLearn to InvestHow to Become Shrewd


The week's question
In December 2024, in the thread "Re: BRK: Why Not XOM?", BreckHutHigh asked the members: "What about the long road trips with kids?" This week it is put to everyone again. The button below opens the small thread re-asking it - read what others have said so far, then give your own answer as an ordinary reply.
Answer this questionContinue to Shrewd'mThis note won't appear again
Halls of Shrewd'm / US Policy
Unthreaded | Threaded | Whole Thread (41) |
Author: albaby1 SILVER
SHREWD
  😊 😞

Number: of 84361 
Subject: Re: Audio of Trump's Conversation
Date: 06/27/23 7:38 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Report Post | Recommend It!
No. of Recommendations: 5
So who put the material there? Had to have been...Herself.

What do you imagine the classified information to be? These weren't stand-alone files or documents that she brought home from the office. Per the inspector general's report, the classified information that was on her servers was information that was contained within the body of, or attachments to, emails that she received. Several instances involved classified information buried deep in the body of an email chain, many many forwards before Clinton received a copy of that email.

There's no evidence that any of it was put there by Clinton herself.

You can't send that kind of material from a classified network to an unclass network.
When you have access to that kind of material, you can only send it to people who are inside that particular network. Someone has to remove it and put it someplace else.


Perhaps - but in order to prosecute Clinton, you have to prove that the someone was Clinton. And considering that the classified information was part of or appended to incoming emails to Clinton, there's not going to be any evidence.

That's hilarious.

What's hilarious about it? You can't convict someone of a crime unless each and every element of the crime is established. The obstruction of justice and destruction of evidence statutes apply only to specific proceedings - and legislative Congressional inquiries aren't among them. They apply to agency and law enforcement proceedings, and Congress is neither. It is a legislative body. You aren't committing the specific crime of destruction of "evidence" if you delete documents in order to avoid a legislative enquiry.
Post New | Post Reply | Report Post | Recommend It!
Print the post
Members reply directly to albaby1 here — and replies get answered. Reading is free; so is joining the conversation. Join Shrewd'm »
This community has written 84,309 posts about US Policy. The article-length ones it recommended most:
It's going to get worse · 33 recs · 2025
G’day Donny · 30 recs · 2026
Old Related Story · 28 recs · 2026
HCR is a national treasure · 27 recs · 2025
Fascism in America · 27 recs · 2025
Unthreaded | Threaded | Whole Thread (41) |


Announcements
US Policy FAQ
Contact Shrewd'm
Contact the developer of these message boards.

Best Of Politics | Best Of | Favourites & Replies | All Boards | Followed Shrewds | Open Questions | Moving a community