Well folks, I think we have found intent.. john.podesta@gmail.com wrote: On another matter....and not to sound like Lanny, but we are going to have to dump all those emails so better to do so sooner than later. https://www.wikileaks.com/podesta-emails/emailid/41841 This was the day before the Congressional Subpoena was issued, no way this can be ignored by the FBI.
Meanwhile the leftist are trying to find anything to change the subject from Hillary and her implosion. This is just one more piece of evidence that shows her high level of corruption.
Libs don't care about content. They just revile Comey for his timing. If Hillary killed and ate a baby on CNN, they would be mad at CNN's timing; they couldn't care less about the baby.
From your provided link... On Mon, Mar 2, 2015 at 10:57 PM, John Podesta <john.podesta@gmail.com> wrote: > On another matter....and not to sound like Lanny, but we are going to have > to dump all those emails so better to do so sooner than later
That makes all the difference in the world legally though. If it were the day after, it would be a totally different ball game.
Depends on when the emails were deleted and also it sounds like they got word that a subpoena was being issued. No way it's a coincidence that a day before the subpoena was issued they were emailing each other talking about dumping emails as though there is a certain urgency to the matter.
No it doesnt. You are required to preserve evidence as soon as it can be resonably anticipated that action will be filed. http://www.americanbar.org/content/...rea_e_newsletter_home/obligationpreserve.html The moment the NYT piece hit the "reasonably anticipated" had been met any destruction of evidemce after that point is obstruction.
Maybe. I mean clearly this is part of a pattern and it goes to intent to conceal, but it is not destroying evidence subject to a subpoena until the thing is actually issued and served.
Could just as easily argue that there was no anticipation of an action being directed at them since they were State Department property and the State Department was the one to whom the subpoena should have been directed. The WH not invoking executive privilege over these emails has been interesting though. Obama must want the Clintons to be dinked as hell so he gets their speech gigs come January.
See above, fo you honestly think that Hillary is the first person to ddestry evidence in anticipation? Destroying evidence in anticipation of action is illegal. - - - Updated - - - Bull(*)(*)(*)(*), you dont even believe that only the state Department can subpoena them. That doesn't even make sense. You are spinning now because you didnt know the law and you are making up crap as you go along. Admit you were wrong and move on before you get humiliated further.
Destruction of evidence in anticipation of a subpoena is illegal. You lliberals really think that Hillary is the only one who has ever tried this (*)(*)(*)(*)?
Ha! I'm a card carrying member of the VRWC, friend. Thanks for helping me make my point. She's a criminal.
Yes, the significance of that date, is that this was when the world learned about the server from the nytimes article. http://mobile.nytimes.com/2015/03/0...flags.html?referer=https://en.m.wikipedia.org
