Clinton aide takes the 5th

Originally posted by no1marauder
As to the first, the Secretary of State is not a person "without authority" to remove documents, so the statute is inapplicable.

As to the second, yes you pointed it out in the other thread, but never answered this rather relevant question:

no1: Who is it alleged received such material?

You are absolutely wrong as to the first.
As to the second I did not answer because I figured you were being deliberately obtuse. I still do.
sub section 1 says "OR delivered to anyone..."
That is not what I am focusing on.
The focus is on before and after that, Such as ,or lost, or stolen, abstracted, or destroyed, .She did destroy at least 35,000 emails
And through gross negligence permits the same to be removed from its proper place of custody She did this by putting it on a her personal server in her barn in New York,

Originally posted by normbenign
There are two reasons I can think of for taking the 5th.

1. You have engaged in criminal conduct and don't want to incriminate yourself.

2. You know of criminal conduct and don't want to commit inadvertent perjury.

In both scenarios, you know of some criminal act, that you say never happened.

There is #3. Clinton is afraid this will make her look like a ditz and hurt her election chances, so she asked the aide to not talk.

Originally posted by utherpendragon
You are absolutely wrong as to the first.
As to the second I did not answer because I figured you were being deliberately obtuse. I still do.
sub section 1 says "OR delivered to anyone..."
That is not what I am focusing on.
The focus is on before and after that, Such as ,[b]or lost, or stolen, abstracted, or destroyed, .She did destroy at lea ...[text shortened]... ace of custody [/b] She did this by putting it on a her personal server in her barn in New York,[/b]

It's a ridiculous claim to assert that the Secretary of State doesn't have the authority to remove documents from where they are normally kept.

The rest is rubbish; you're reading a few lines out of context. Standard e-mails generated in the course of diplomatic business are not documents relating to the "national defense" as required by the statute. Nor does there appear to have been any requirement that the Sec. of State exclusively use government servers or not use a private e-mail account while conducting government business as Colin Powell did.http://www.mediaite.com/online/secretary-of-state-colin-powell-also-used-personal-email-account/

Originally posted by normbenign
There are two reasons I can think of for taking the 5th.

1. You have engaged in criminal conduct and don't want to incriminate yourself.

2. You know of criminal conduct and don't want to commit inadvertent perjury.

In both scenarios, you know of some criminal act, that you say never happened.

Asserting that answering a question "may tend to incriminate" you doesn't necessarily support either assumption.

Originally posted by no1marauder
It's a ridiculous claim to assert that the Secretary of State doesn't have the authority to remove documents from where they are normally kept.

The rest is rubbish; you're reading a few lines out of context. Standard e-mails generated in the course of diplomatic business are not documents relating to the "national defense" as required by the statute. ...[text shortened]... e appear to have been any requirement that the Sec. of State exclusively use government servers.

You don't know what your talking about. 🙄

Originally posted by utherpendragon
You don't know what your talking about. 🙄

Keep getting your legal analysis from Rush, Breitbart and other locations in the right wing blogosphere.

Originally posted by no1marauder
Keep getting your legal analysis from Rush, Breitbart and other locations in the right wing blogosphere.

where do you get yours from ? A cracker jack box ?

Originally posted by utherpendragon
where do you get yours from ? A cracker jack box ?

Marauder gets his from the powers that be.

Really, their opinions are the only ones that matter.