Should Hillary Clinton Be Forced Turn Over Her Email Server For Inspection?

[pbrauer]

Yes
No
Other

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized

 

[Lakeside]

Hillary used that server while she was getting taxpayers money. That should make it available to taxpayers except for the very sensitive information. I am not an FOIA expert but even if a lot is redacted it is still property of the taxpayers.

 

[Summerwind]

Hillary used that server while she was getting taxpayers money. That should make it available to taxpayers except for the very sensitive information. I am not an FOIA expert but even if a lot is redacted it is still property of the taxpayers.

Well that's the dumbest thought process I've ever seen. So if I get money from XYZ company, my server belongs to them? I don't think so.

Now the fact that she had national information on that server, that's more of a quality argument for demanding it's inspection. However, if she truly either turned over or deleted everything from the server, I think the only actual recourse would be the NSA data farm.

 

[Excon]

Yes
No
Other

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized

If it come to the point of legal subpena I am not sure how anybody could find it to be unreasonable as required.

As it appears she is obfuscating, of course she should be forced.

 

[Declan]

That server will be shredded and replaced before any subpoenas could be issued, if it is not "updated" already.

 

[Excon]

That server will be shredded and replaced before any subpoenas could be issued, if it is not "updated" already.

That may be true, which would be discovered if examined by an appropriate technician.

 

[pbrauer]

I say she is protected by the Fourth Amendment and unless there is probable cause, no one has the right to see it. And I would say that even if it was a Republican.

Even if she had two accounts instead of just one, the very same arguments could be made.

 

[Excon]

I say she is protected by the Fourth Amendment and unless there is probable cause, no one has the right to see it. And I would say that even if it was a Republican.

Even if she had two accounts instead of just one, the very same arguments could be made.

Is that what you think?

She is apparently obfuscating.
That is reason enough to force the issue.

 

[nota bene]

Absolutely. And immediately.

 

[Medusa]

Well that's the dumbest thought process I've ever seen. So if I get money from XYZ company, my server belongs to them? I don't think so.

Now the fact that she had national information on that server, that's more of a quality argument for demanding it's inspection. However, if she truly either turned over or deleted everything from the server, I think the only actual recourse would be the NSA data farm.

taxpaying means owning everything according to libertarians I think .But they want the little government to protect them although they dont always want to pay tax.

 

[tres borrachos]

Yes, she should.

 

[Montecresto]

Yes
No
Other

Yes, of course she should. Nobody in government, especially at that level, and regardless of their party, gender, race, character or religion should be left to self scrutiny. And if we'd just do the simple right now, we'd never have to talk about this again.

 

[Rogue Valley]

The server has probably already been wiped with DBAN and maybe a belt-sander for good measure.

 

[cpwill]

Yes. By using solely that server to conduct government business, she made it into government property. By deleting those emails without getting permission from the State Department, she is destroying tens of thousands of government documents. If she doesn't like that, then she is free to run for President, get elected, and change the law.

 

[Lakeside]

Well that's the dumbest thought process I've ever seen. So if I get money from XYZ company, my server belongs to them? I don't think so.

Now the fact that she had national information on that server, that's more of a quality argument for demanding it's inspection. However, if she truly either turned over or deleted everything from the server, I think the only actual recourse would be the NSA data farm.

The dumbest thing I have ever seen is someone who does NOT know how to read. Glasses may help you.

 

[Robert in Ohio]

She has her own rules just like Slick Willie!

 

[longview]

I think the server is already Government property, and as such she has no implied right of privacy,
from the Government. The Government can request an audit anytime they want!

 

[LizardofOz]

Yeah and I think we should audit all politicians as well. Let normal people do it, and let them all go down. That's what its about right? What's fair is fair, and do you really think that we won't find revealing things from all government officials?

 

[jamesrage]

Yes
No
Other

I say yes.She used it for government I.E. tax payer business in order to circumvent the requirement that these tax payer business emails be saved. This idea that she got her own email server because she couldn't get a .gov email address if ****en absurd.

 

[Objective Voice]

Tough one.

On the one hand, State Dept policy gives her the option under certain circumstances and with approval to use a private email account. If it was determined the she used the account improperly, i.e., didn't set up email encryption or classified emails were hacked due to poor software security, then perhaps there could be a legal standing to seize her server. There may even be enough reasonable cause to do it because she didn't follow Dept. archiving protocol.

On the other hand, if she purchased the server out of pocket, then it's her property and there's little that can be done without a warrant. And what would be the justification? Suspicion of not turning over unclassified email pertaining to decisions she might have made as SoS via email? Sorry, but that doesn't cut it.

Although even I call her decision on this matter into question, I seriously doubt suspicion is enough to seizing her server.

PS: Her taxpayer salary - assuming she paid for the server - stops being the people's money the moment those tax dollars hit her bank account. Just saying...

 

[matchlight]

I'd like to see a subpoena issued for it, but I doubt that is going to happen. Congress does not have the authority to act as prosecutor--only the Executive Branch does. And I can't see President Pinocchio's Justice Dept. doing anything about it. I don't think it matters that much, because Mrs. Clinton is being damaged politically by this, without any criminal prosecution, and it may well get worse. The other leaders of the Democratic Party seem to be stuck with her, even though they evidently have quite a bit of doubt about her as their candidate.

 

[Democrat152]

I think she should. I doubt it will convince anyone that believes she is hiding something nefarious to trust her when nothing is found, but It would give them one less thing to criticize her about.

 

[Montecresto]

I'd like to see a subpoena issued for it, but I doubt that is going to happen. Congress does not have the authority to act as prosecutor--only the Executive Branch does. And I can't see President Pinocchio's Justice Dept. doing anything about it. I don't think it matters that much, because Mrs. Clinton is being damaged politically by this, without any criminal prosecution, and it may well get worse. The other leaders of the Democratic Party seem to be stuck with her, even though they evidently have quite a bit of doubt about her as their candidate.

Did you see Bush using his JD to clean up his administration. Presidents don't do that. Not just Obama. It's unfortunate that partisans on the left aren't demanding to see what Hillary's hiding, but then, that's why a partisan is a partisan.

 

[Montecresto]

I think she should. I doubt it will convince anyone that believes she is hiding something nefarious to trust her when nothing is found, but It would give them one less thing to criticize her about.

Oh, something will be found, if she complies.

 

[Mycroft]

Yes
No
Other

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized

I think there is sufficient probable cause for any court to issue a warrant.