Gowdy: 'Our Committee Doesn't Have the Power' to Seize Hillary's Email Server


Back in March, Trey Gowdy said on Morning Joe that his committee does not have subpoena power over private property, which the email server clearly is private property.

Google it and find thousands of links on the subject.

While the server is not government property, any all, email set from Hillary to any government agency (including those from her personal server) ARE government property. Yet, she picks and chooses which emails get released.
She certainly isn't going to release any email that implicates her in anything. Liberals don't seem to have a problem with this. It really says a lot about their ethics, or should I say lack of ethics.

Good news! Hundreds of thousands of Hillary's emails will be released by the State Department today around 6:00pm, so the press and all the Hillary haters have their week-end fun laid out for them. Enjoy!

You mean the ones that she had screened and cleared for release?:1rotfl:

Post# 17. There IS federal law against what she did. I know because I worked for the Dept of State in IT. She has NO private emails once she admits that she was using the server for gov work. All her work becomes gov property, including anything private she puts on it. Sorry, but once again you have been proven wrong

Post# 22 All personal emails become government property once she used the server for government business. OK, Mr. IT answer this. "Why did Trey Gowdy ask Hillary to send her server to an independent third party? If he had very right to view her private emails, why not send the server directly to himself?

Post# 34 How come you didn't answer the question about Trey Gowdy? If Hillary's personal server was government property the second she used it for government business, why did he demand that Hillary send the server to an independent third party instead of himself? We know the answer to that question, her personal server ISN'T government property.

Post# 42 Try a third time. HILLARY"S PRIVATE SERVER ISN"T GOVERNMENT PROPERTY!!!!!

If her private server was government property, why did Trey Gowdy ask for government property to be sent to an independent third party? As a lawyer, Trey Gowdy knows that it isn't GOVERNMENT PROPERTY!!!!!!!

Where was the question answered? I do have to admit that question did change a little. It was my mistake, and it wasn't intention. The original comment was contents on her server was government property, as I stated in post 22. In post 34 and 42, I stated that the server was government property. However, the jest of the question is still the same, whether the server or just the contents were government property doesn't matter. Trey Gowdy asked either of the above be sent to an independent third party. The only logical conclusion is that her private emails aren't government property as was stated in post 17. No one has contracted this. If so, what post?

[QUOTE=Guest;1093729]Post# 17. There IS federal law against what she did. I know because I worked for the Dept of State in IT. QUOTE]

Wow, a GS-335-5 Computer Assistant knows the CFR's? Impressive! :1rotfl:

No one has contracted this. That should be contradicted this. I am sorry, but I had to ruin mister correction's good time in pointing out spelling errors instead of ever addressing the contents of a post. The next time that he doesn't call a person a name will be the first.

The guest format certainly makes conversations like this one hard to follow, but it seems to me that at least one poster here seems to be splitting hairs. The bottom line question in my opinion is, why would anyone NOT want to know if the person seeking the highest office in the land was careless enough to use her personal computer for classified information? Talk about going to the polling booth with blinders on.......how can that not be important information that one would want to know?!?

Who cares

No matter what, we will spend the next 15 months with Ms Clinton, as mentioned earlier, parsing every word as her husband did when he was lying.

And those of you who love this rich, scandal ridden lady will defend her over and over.

She is a liar, manipulator and you seem to be one of her "manipulatees"

How the Democratic Party allowed themselves to get stuck like this is certainly "book worthy"

Every scandal, and every breath of scandal about her, and I do realize that none of this should reflect on her in anyway. It is either that doggone right wing conspiracy or the fault of George Bush.

You can call everyone on here all the names you wish, you are dreaming if you think this is the last scandal or that this woman deserves your trust.

Argue with the parsing, but as in her husbands case, she is not a truthful person, so stand up and be counted.

Excellent point! But, as you have seen by the last presidential election (and possibly the 1st) there are those that do NOT care whether the person is qualified or fit for the job, but just whether or not they promise the golden handout. And, then there was the large black turn out that voted purely because he was black. I am sure that many of his votes came from uninformed voters, because otherwise they would have had to be stupid.

[QUOTE=Guest;1093736]They don't use the GS system of ranking in the State Dept :censored:
But, you got your five minutes of attention. By the way, how much are they paying political trolls today?

I guess if you are wrong, then attack the person, not the subject. Clinton broke federal law. Now it is up to her superiors as to whether or not they treat her as she would have treated anyone working for her, or not. I doubt anything will be done to her. I am sure they will investigate the whistle blower.

Is this still the US? Innocent until proven guilty seems only to apply to Democrats. Splitting hairs! When you are asked a question, how about doing something that is totally out of character, and answer the question. If you haven't noticed, not one Republican here has ever admitted ever being wrong. When they are wrong on a thread, they just stop posting on the thread.


All of President Obama's trumped up scandals, and Hillary's to date don't amount to a pi$$ hole in the snow to people that are open minded. The only thing that they are good for is to give the Republicans in Congress something to do. This enables them to feel good about themselves, and gives them talking points back in the home districts/states.

I think that a lot of Republicans here have a memory of convenience. I seem to be one of her lap dogs. That is truly funny. I am not going to go back and find out how many times I have said the following. Hillary has been running for president since the mid 90's. No woman would stand by her man, after her man subjected her to worldwide humiliation, if she didn't need him for something. Her something was the Senate first, and then the White House becoming multi-millionaires was a side benefit.

If John Kasich isn't the Republicans choice for president, I am going to vote for Donald Duck. I want our next president to be someone that puts party affiliation aside as much as possible, and works with the other side for the good of all Americans. He seems to be the only one now that fits the bill.

The Republicans wouldn't have the control of the Senate and House, if it wasn't for President Obama's color, and Gerrymandering. Voting based on color is a two way street. Does anybody think for a second the Tea Party wasn't given birth, because of His Blackness? I am amazed that anyone would even throw out there that Republicans are the only ones that are well informed, vote base upon a person's record, and the policies that he will bring with him to the White House.

Name Calling! I wasn't on this board five minutes, and was called so many names that I thought they were handing out prices for rudeness here.

You do have a "different" way of seeing things. I really do feel sorry that someone called you a name....just kidding. I don't recall anyone calling you a name. You may have been labeled due to your obnoxious and rude comments to other posters.
If you think that we have a Republican majority in congress due to Obama's color, I can't say what I want to say about your mentality because that really would be rude and my wife would probably pull my ear. Obama has been given more passes than ANY OTHER president in history, save maybe Clinton. No, even more than Clinton. Now, THAT may have been due to his color....probably was. We have a Republican majority in congress due to his and Democrat policies. And if you don't believe that, then do your own poll and ask the voters. Maybe you don't agree with polls unless they favor your party.

But, please don't go away mad.....naw, go ahead. Just kidding.

All I want to do is ask this poster just a few things. Engaging in discussion does not seem to be the strong point of this poster.

1. You level and have leveled some accusations at "Republicans" on this board. How do you know the party affiliation of the posters ?

2. You level a lot of accusations based on the Presidents race, more than once or twice. I find that to be offensive and ask what color has to do with it ? You level the same charge at the Tea Party and before you accuse, I am not a member. THOSE are charges leveled at the lowest street level of democratic politics. They do not, nor ever have had any credence, and allow me once again to express my disgust with your constant talk of race. THAT issue is one brought up only by democrats who do not understand the policies. If you oppose someone and they happen to be black, you are NOT a racist but that seems to be mantra which I thought had begun to die until you.

3. Your comments about trumped up charges that are leveled only at Democrats manifests your total lack of knowledge. And since they do not amount to whatever gross expression you used, then I suppose the majority of americans not trusting your candidate is just as she always says another right wing conspiracy.

There is no perfection in person or party. Your posts are pretty much aimed at one defending another and that is your right, but base it on facts, and not on this stupid divisive race thing. If race was an issue, no matter how many black votes he got he would not be the President.

As far as name calling, you seem to excel and I sure wish we could extend the ignore button to political because you certainly deserve that.

You appear to be loaded with a lot of hate and again, that is ok if you want to unload it here but at least do it with facts.

Your candidate that you defend is not even trusted by most americans, yet you appear to trust her. I am not sure how you arrived at one of your many JUDGEMENTS about innocent before guilty but it sure is not based on any fact at all.

You make this about PARTY on almost every post. Try just once to focus on issues of character and trust. Have you read about the Swiss bank and their ties to the Foundation ? I know, again those doggone Republicans just saying those things. Have you read about all the women who are waiting in the wings to tell us about her hubby, AND MOST IMPORTANTLY, what he said about his wife ?

There are more serious character issues involved in this campaign than I can recall ever. I am not speaking of religion, race or anything except SERIOUS character flaws and judgement flaws.

I leave you with the last few sentences of an op ed from today on Hillary Clinton entitled "The astonishing weakness of Hillary Clinton".

"Clinton just seems like a mismatch for the party and the moment. The center-left darling of Wall Street talking up issues of inequality. The former Walmart board member posing as savior of American jobs. The "Smart Power" leader whose achievement at state was wrecking a nation and turning it over to Sunni terrorists faster than George W. Bush. A champion of women who pretended the leader of the free world was the victim of his intern. The wife of a man who flies on the "Lolita Express" with a porn star that was booked for "massages." The vanquisher of a Yonkers mayor.

Is this really the best the Democrats can do? Yes, and that should worry them."

The astonishing weakness of Hillary Clinton

You can call everyone you want a racist,,,,Tea Party, Republicans, etc.....that has been going on since President Obama became a candidate, but for what is it worth, that kind of talk simply makes me stop reading. You claim NOT to be a supporter but spend most of your posts doing just that by attacking anyone who is NOT a supporter.

:BigApplause: