Trump says he is likely to be criminally indicted over the January 6 event

[johnwk2]

@Jezcoe

@johnwk2

sim cards removed from phones and hard drives destroyed?

During the time Clinton was Serving as Secretary of State.

Those last two things get conflated into what happened after the subpoena was issued… likely conflated on purpose.

Evidence was destroyed.

[Jezcoe]

@johnwk2

@Jezcoe

@johnwk2

When were the emails deleted

After the Subpoena was issued.

They were deleted when knowledge that a subpoena was being issued.

I know.

They were deleted by the tech of the firm who was hired to administer the server after Clinton left the State Department.

When the server was first being administered, Clinton’s lawyers instructed that all information older than six months be deleted. Then when the subpoena came down a few months later, the lawyers instructed to preserve all data. The tech realized that he never followed the first instruction to delete all of the information older than six months and had as he tesitfied under oath an " Oh ■■■■■ moment and then he took it upon himself to cover that he did not follow the standing order to delete all material older than six months

There is zero evidence that Clinton or her lawyers instructed that the emails be deleted. If there was evidence that this was the case then they could have moved forward with charges on Clinton and her lawyers… but it just doesn’t exist.

[Jezcoe]

@johnwk2

@Jezcoe

@johnwk2

sim cards removed from phones and hard drives destroyed?

During the time Clinton was Serving as Secretary of State.

Those last two things get conflated into what happened after the subpoena was issued… likely conflated on purpose.

Evidence was destroyed.

It happened before a subpoena was issued while Clinton was serving as Secretary of State.

[johnwk2]

@Jezcoe

@johnwk2

@Jezcoe

@johnwk2

sim cards removed from phones and hard drives destroyed?

During the time Clinton was Serving as Secretary of State.

Those last two things get conflated into what happened after the subpoena was issued… likely conflated on purpose.

Evidence was destroyed.

It happened before a subpoena was issued while Clinton was serving as Secretary of State.

Evidence was destroyed.

From FBI fragments, a question: Did Team Clinton destroy evidence under...

Grand Jury for thee [Trump], but not for me [Hillary].

[JayJay]

This makes absolutely no sense at all.

Making abortion decisions a government thing as opposed to a woman and her doctor thing is the definition of government interference.

[johnwk2]

When a third party’s life hangs in the balance and happens to be the issue at hand.

[Jezcoe]

@johnwk2

@Jezcoe

@johnwk2

@Jezcoe

@johnwk2

sim cards removed from phones and hard drives destroyed?

During the time Clinton was Serving as Secretary of State.

Those last two things get conflated into what happened after the subpoena was issued… likely conflated on purpose.

Evidence was destroyed.

It happened before a subpoena was issued while Clinton was serving as Secretary of State.

Evidence was destroyed.

Did Team Clinton destroy evidence under subpoena? | Washington Examiner

Grand Jury for thee [Trump], but not for me [Hillary].

Sometime between March 25 and March 31, according to the FBI, a tech worker not identified in the report had what he called an “oh ■■■■■ moment. He realized that he had not done what Mills had ordered back in December 2014. In his first interview with the FBI, on Feb. 18, 2016, the unidentified staffer “indicated that he did not recall conducting deletions based upon this realization.” But then, in a follow-up interview on May 3, 2016, the staffer “indicated he believed he had an ‘oh ■■■■■ moment and sometime between March 25-31, 2015 deleted the Clinton archive mailbox.” The staffer used the now-notorious BleachBit to do the work, and manually deleted a backup as well.

But the story is a little more complicated than that. The FBI found that on March 9, 2015, Mills sent the Platte River Networks staff, including the unidentified worker, an email, in the words of the FBI, “referencing the preservation request from the Committee on Benghazi.” In his first interview with the FBI, the staffer told agents that “he did not recall seeing the preservation request referenced in the March 9, 2015 e-mail.” But then, in the May 3 follow-up interview, the staffer “indicated that, at the time he made the deletions in March 2015, he was aware of the existence of the preservation request and the fact that it meant he should not disturb Clinton’s e-mail date on the [Platte River Networks] server.” The staffer also told the FBI he did not consult any colleagues, company legal counsel or anyone else “regarding the meaning of the preservation request.”

How is this different than what I wrote?

[johnwk2]

Another deflection. We are talking about special treatment . . .

A Grand Jury for thee [Trump], but not for me [Hillary].

[Jezcoe]

@johnwk2

Another deflection. We are talking about special treatment . . .

A Grand Jury for thee [Trump], but not for me [Hillary].

It is amusing that anything that doesn’t line up with what you think happened is considered to be a deflection.

What I posted was from the article that you provided.

[johnwk2]

@Jezcoe

@johnwk2

Another deflection. We are talking about special treatment . . .

A Grand Jury for thee [Trump], but not for me [Hillary].

It is amusing that anything that doesn’t line up with what you think happened is considered to be a deflection.

What I posted was from the article that you provided.

And your comment was irrelevant to the special treatment given to Hillary and her crew.

A Grand Jury for thee [Trump], but not for me [Hillary].

[Jezcoe]

@johnwk2

And your comment was irrelevant to the special treatment given to Hillary and her crew.

What I quoted was from your own article that you provided that said basically what I said. That there is no evidence that Clinton or her lawyers ordered that the emails be destroyed after the subpoena was issued.

Since there is no evidence… how does one convene a Grand Jury to issue an indictment?

[johnwk2]

@Jezcoe

@johnwk2

And your comment was irrelevant to the special treatment given to Hillary and her crew.

What I quoted was from your own article that you provided that said basically what I said. That there is no evidence that Clinton or her lawyers ordered that the emails be destroyed after the subpoena was issued.

Since there is no evidence… how does one convene a Grand Jury to issue an indictment?

Pretending actual events which took place as not being evidence of suspected criminal activity, does not make it so, and is a question properly decided by a Grand Jury . . . not political hacks.

[LucyLou]

Arizona for sure.

[LucyLou]

You mean in areas where he lost and his gang of thugs hatched plans to steal the votes from the voters of those states.

[Jezcoe]

@johnwk2

@Jezcoe

@johnwk2

And your comment was irrelevant to the special treatment given to Hillary and her crew.

What I quoted was from your own article that you provided that said basically what I said. That there is no evidence that Clinton or her lawyers ordered that the emails be destroyed after the subpoena was issued.

Since there is no evidence… how does one convene a Grand Jury to issue an indictment?

Pretending actual events which took place as not being evidence of suspected criminal activity, does not make it so, and is a question properly decided by a Grand Jury . . . not political hacks.

One must have actual evidence… not simply conjecture to bring and indictment.

If the evidence that Clinton or her lawyers ordering that the emails be deleted after the subpoena was issued then how would one bring a charge based on that?

[WuWei]

@JayJay

This makes absolutely no sense at all.

Making abortion decisions a government thing as opposed to a woman and her doctor thing is the definition of government interference.

Then you misunderstood.

That’s pretty much what I said.

[WuWei]

Hildawg definitely got special treatment.

[johnwk2]

Evidence, was not destroyed?

[Jezcoe]

@johnwk2

Evidence, was not destroyed?

You keep going back to that.

It wasn’t destroyed under orders from Clinton or her lawyers.

That would show the intent… the evidence for it isn’t there.

[WuWei]

@Jezcoe

It wasn’t destroyed under orders from Clinton or her lawyers.

Yes it was.