Are you going to demand the same of all the other government officials that did the same thing?  If no laws were broken, as they keep saying, why bother? 

You do realize she hasn't said she was running.  Right now she is just a private citizen.  How long can you make demands and harrass a private citizen if no crime was committed?  Everyone by law has some degree of privacy, even if you don't like them.

Just asking.....

Last edited by florentine (3/11/2015 3:24 pm)

Investigation Nation. This is one big reason that our federal legislative branch gets nothing done for the benefit of their constituents. They would rather spend their time investigating rivals or overblown issues that they believe will give their politically partisan point of view the upper hand in the next election. The following article by Jake Sherman and John Bresnahan illustrates the eagerness of legislators to continue their recent obsession with ad nauseum investigations.

Wouldn't you like to see them delve into some real ethics issues with some of their own members?



A Hillary Clinton feeding frenzy in the GOP House


Now that the Hillary Clinton email flap has blown up into the biggest news story in Washington, seemingly every House Republican wants in on the action.

No fewer than three House committees have launched or are considering probes into Clinton’s email practices, a feeding frenzy that could allow the presumptive Democratic presidential nominee to cast the investigations as yet another partisan witch-hunt.

It could also become a problem for Speaker John Boehner and his leadership team, which has made a point of trying to prevent multiple committees from tripping over themselves investigating the same topic. They’re now working to keep the Clinton investigations on distinct tracks.

Rep. Jason Chaffetz (R-Utah) says his House Oversight and Government Affairs Committee is opening an investigation into whether Clinton violated government record-keeping and security regulations by using a private email server to handle official State Department communications. Chaffetz has threatened to subpoena Clinton to get what he wants.

California Rep. Ed Royce’s House Foreign Affairs Committee has signaled it might jump in as well, emailing at least one reporter seeking information about internal State Department concerns regarding Clinton’s emails.

And Rep. Trey Gowdy’s (R-S.C.) Benghazi select committee, which has drawn the most headlines so far, has issued a subpoena for all of Clinton’s State Department communications, with a deadline in the coming weeks. Gowdy’s panel is also actively exploring options with congressional attorneys about whether they can take control of Clinton’s email server, which is stored in her Westchester County, N.Y., home.

Boehner (R-Ohio) has long been concerned with multiple committees probing the same matter. The Clinton email investigations could quickly turn into a turf battle, with committee chairmen stepping over each other in search of morsels of information.

Boehner even employs an aide to keep investigations streamlined. But with three committees potentially gearing up for Clinton probes, a full-blown congressional chase is already on.

Senior Republican sources say the situation is under control, and each committee will have their avenue for exploration if they want it. The contours of each investigation are not set in stone, but they are taking shape. Gowdy’s Benghazi committee will deal with emails that contain information relating to the attack in Libya — and nothing else. Chaffetz, meanwhile, will probe all non-Benghazi emails.

The mechanics of how all this will unfold aren’t clear, and there are significant legal questions over whether Republicans on Capitol Hill can obtain control of Clinton’s email server.

For starters, it’s not certain that Republicans have the legal right or authority to do so. Gowdy has said in several interviews that the select committee, created during the last Congress, doesn’t have authorization to make that happen. Clinton’s communications are fair game, but the server she sent those emails on might not be, the South Carolina Republican believes.

“Well, our committee doesn’t have the power — under our rules, we don’t have the power to seize a personal property like that,” Gowdy said during an interview on MSNBC’s “Morning Joe” on Tuesday. “The House, as a whole, that’s frankly an open constitutional question as to whether or not the House as a whole, has that legal authority.”

Sources close to the probe said that the resolution that created the Benghazi committee — enacted in 2014— don’t give the panel the right to seize any “tangible asset.” That would seemingly include Clinton’s email server. The panel could issue Clinton a subpoena, and if she failed to comply, the entire House could vote on civil and criminal contempt citations against her.

However, it would be up to the Justice Department to enforce a criminal contempt citation, which almost certainly is never going to happen. A similar situation occurred when the House approved a contempt citation against Attorney General Eric Holder in 2012 over the botched “Fast and Furious” gun-tracking operation. DOJ, of course, refused to enforce any criminal charges against Holder, leading the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee to sue the attorney general in federal court. That case is still being litigated.

With Gowdy finding himself in a legal limbo over getting custody of Clinton’s server, both he and other Republicans are trying to pressure her to provide it a “neutral arbiter” to decide what emails she should turn over. Clinton slapped down the idea during her press conference on Tuesday, but Republicans are stepping up their efforts to convince her to go along.

“We are not ruling out any options at this point,” said Michael Steel, a spokesman for Boehner. “Secretary Clinton must turn over the server to a neutral arbiter who can inventory the records, make a complete, thorough accounting and impartial determination of which emails and records are official and the property of the federal government.”

“Those official records must be turned over,” Steel added. “The Congress – and the American people – have a legal right to these official records, and her current position is unacceptable and unsustainable.”

florentine wrote:

Are you going to demand the same of all the other government officials that did the same thing? If no laws were broken, as they keep saying, why bother?

You do realize she hasn't said she was running. Right now she is just a private citizen. How long can you make demands and harrass a private citizen if no crime was committed? Everyone by law has some degree of privacy, even if you don't like them.

Just asking.....

Absolutely! Any federal official/employee has to comply with the same requirements!
This has nothing to do with her personal e-mails but it does apply to all the email she
produced as Secretary of State. Since she used her own e-mail server and mixed governmental issues and personal issues a neutral third party needs to inspect each e-mail and determine is it official or personal if official it needs to be saved as per federal law.
But now that seems difficult to do because she said “they” delated 30,000 personal e-mails? Nothing could go wrong with that could it?
 
Go back and look at what Lager and said about this: 03/03/2015, Hillary Clinton Used Personal Email Account at State Dept., Possibly Breaking Rules

"This is a big deal for a couple of reasons. The security aspect is one of them.

The other, I would say bigger reason, is that I wonder how many sensitive, classified, and otherwise secret information Mrs. Clinton has in her personal e-mail that she shouldn't have now that she is no longer in government.

That's not "possibly breaking rules" Wouldn't that qualify has a major felonius federal offense?"

And:
"It's a big deal. While I won't get into an argument whether or not government networks are more or less safe that g-mail, yahoo, or some other e-mail service, there needs to be a mechanism in place to track, keep, oversee, and audit what public officials (especially ones in sensitive positions like the President's cabinent)."
 
 
 

And the list of Republicans who did the same thing keeps growing....Jeb Bush, Scott Walker, Chris Christie, Rick Perry, Marco Rubio, Bobby Jindal.....  So many to investigate, so little time.