In the general case, there is 't much information that can be extracted about emails that have been unrecoverable deleted. I can’t view this one line as either incriminating or innocuous.
The regs are that no information, ZERO, NADA, can be deleted.
It must all be turned over for records management.
I know, but where things get into an ambiguous zone is that I believe this rule was to apply to government communications and not personal communications. Keeping personal and government communications in separate accounts helps prevent a grayline here.
But if she deleted personal communications on a personal server, is that a violation? I dont think that it is. But there is no way to k ow the classification of those inaccessible messages to determine if the deletion was a violation.
She doesn’t have the right to decide what is personal and what’s official or work related. But this is why govt employees and virtually all private enterprise employees are required to use the company email server on all work communication.
Using a private account is only allowed as an exception, like you don’t have your work laptop with you or a gmail thread shifted into official business.
And I’m not suggesting this a lock her up for life kinda crime. But it was a serious security risk and an obvious attempt to avoid FOIA oversight by her whole team of assistants. Hands should have been slapped to clearly communicate this evasion will not be tolerated.
Also how can anyone attempt to argue it wasn’t a ginormous security faux paus. Getting access to her team’s inbox would be of great value to any major foreign govt. Why do you think the US tapped the phones of Merkel and other EU leaders, for decades.
It was a serious error in judgement that can only be explained by a desire to avoid basic transparency, which is essential to maintaining good governance.
(as major networks declare Joe Biden the next president)
I genuinely hope Hunter doesn’t either somehow cause a scandal or do himself harm while his dad is President. It’s not like we haven’t had Presidents with questionable family members before (Clinton’s brother for example, and some of Reagan’s kids), but this seems like it could go really bad if Hunter doesn’t keep a firm grip on himself. I have already said prayers for him.
Whilst “the show is not over until the fat lady sings” as this picture illustrates:
I think that if Mr Joe Biden is sworn in as president, you can expect a flurry of damaging leaks appearing from informed sources within the Democrat Party machine, as it appears many many long for a first female president of the U.S. and consider it as overdue (and I do not think they want the lady in the picture above)
So, when all is said and done, will ANYONE be held accountable? Now that Biden is president, I seriously doubt it. Probably wouldn’t have happened, anyway. People on the left get away with everything and anything. Barr talks a good line, but I’ve seen no arrests, no prosecutions and no consequences. And chances are, Biden will replace him, anyway, with his own choice for Attorney General, and then you can see this all going away.
Which is why I believe the least amount of power in one place the better.
Article 1, Section 8 and the 9th and 10th amendments.
Not quite right. Actually it is former business associate of Hunter Biden - not a “family insider.”
The FBI has many open cases. That does not mean they are all front-burner cases with lots of activity. It just means the case has not been closed.
Here is an article that says " Standards for Opening an FBI Investigation So Low They Make the Statistic Meaningless"
LeafByNiggle . . .
Standards for Opening an FBI Investigation So Low They Make the Statistic Meaningless"
So are you saying this is “meaningless” with Hunter Biden too?