Form OF 109 DID Hillary Clinton sign the required Separation Agreement when she left the State Department.

Markle wrote:http://www.theblaze.com/blog/2015/03/16/four-days-later-state-dept-says-it-doesnt-know-if-hillary-clinton-signed-a-separation-form/

Floridatexan wrote:
What a heap of excrement.  Dig deeper...you might find something that would stick.  Pathetic.

ZVUGKTUBM wrote:

Markle wrote:http://www.theblaze.com/blog/2015/03/16/four-days-later-state-dept-says-it-doesnt-know-if-hillary-clinton-signed-a-separation-form/

2seaoat wrote:Too funny.....if she did not sign a document, she stole her emails.......gotta give an A+ for effort, but how can you steal what you possess?  How can you form the requisite intent to steal something when you own the server?   Is she or someone in State in trouble because she did not sign the form......probably not.  Did she turn over the emails when asked....yes she did.  No crime here, but the fun of chasing Hillary is going to be a hoot.

Second question is did she break the law and commit a felony of a perjury.....it depends what the form says and how ownership of electronic communications stored on your own server are interpreted concerning records of the state Department.  That is less clear, but it is doubtful that the AG will press charges.....but then again it may be a couple years to have an AG confirmed, and those records were timely turned over upon request........

So Mr. Markle.....what is next on the Hillary chase........she took the tag off the mattress at the White House?

KarlRove wrote:

Floridatexan wrote:
What a heap of excrement.  Dig deeper...you might find something that would stick.  Pathetic.

It's like a non-disclosure agreement batwinger...not that you've ever put your ass on the line to sign one.

2seaoat wrote:The form makes NO difference.  None at all.  She owned the server.  She owned the hard drive.  She did not refuse the State Department's request for her emails. You cannot steal what you own.

Why the form is irrelevant with you naive attempt to be a lawyer.......you cannot steal that which you rightfully possess.  There is no crime of theft.  The law is clear.  A private server was allowed, as long as government emails and documents were turned over when requested, and no records were destroyed.   So the form you tout as relevant is totally irrelevant as to the issue of theft.

In regard to her committing perjury.  She owned the server.  The records were her records, which by regulation if some of those records were involving State Department business, she had a DUTY to turn those over to the State Department upon request.   Now if Hillary had paper records which she took from the State Department and secreted the same in her home, and filled out a form and said she had no state department records, that might be perjury.  Nobody has accused her of the same.   The form is a red herring which is similar to the old logical fallacy of when did you stop beating your wife......A question with a false, disputed, or question-begging presupposition.


You cannot steal or commit perjury when the records are owned by Hillary, and the presupposition here is simply to create the false impression that somebody did something wrong......these propaganda techniques always find headlines for a week and then slip into oblivion upon simple application of facts.....the form means nothing and it is a logical fallacy.

2seaoat wrote:The form makes NO difference.  None at all.  She owned the server.  She owned the hard drive.  She did not refuse the State Department's request for her emails. You cannot steal what you own.

Why the form is irrelevant with you naive attempt to be a lawyer.......you cannot steal that which you rightfully possess.  There is no crime of theft.  The law is clear.  A private server was allowed, as long as government emails and documents were turned over when requested, and no records were destroyed.   So the form you tout as relevant is totally irrelevant as to the issue of theft.

In regard to her committing perjury.  She owned the server.  The records were her records, which by regulation if some of those records were involving State Department business, she had a DUTY to turn those over to the State Department upon request.   Now if Hillary had paper records which she took from the State Department and secreted the same in her home, and filled out a form and said she had no state department records, that might be perjury.  Nobody has accused her of the same.   The form is a red herring which is similar to the old logical fallacy of when did you stop beating your wife......A question with a false, disputed, or question-begging presupposition.


You cannot steal or commit perjury when the records are owned by Hillary, and the presupposition here is simply to create the false impression that somebody did something wrong......these propaganda techniques always find headlines for a week and then slip into oblivion upon simple application of facts.....the form means nothing and it is a logical fallacy.

Markle wrote:

2seaoat wrote:The form makes NO difference.  None at all.  She owned the server.  She owned the hard drive.  She did not refuse the State Department's request for her emails. You cannot steal what you own.

Why the form is irrelevant with you naive attempt to be a lawyer.......you cannot steal that which you rightfully possess.  There is no crime of theft.  The law is clear.  A private server was allowed, as long as government emails and documents were turned over when requested, and no records were destroyed.   So the form you tout as relevant is totally irrelevant as to the issue of theft.

In regard to her committing perjury.  She owned the server.  The records were her records, which by regulation if some of those records were involving State Department business, she had a DUTY to turn those over to the State Department upon request.   Now if Hillary had paper records which she took from the State Department and secreted the same in her home, and filled out a form and said she had no state department records, that might be perjury.  Nobody has accused her of the same.   The form is a red herring which is similar to the old logical fallacy of when did you stop beating your wife......A question with a false, disputed, or question-begging presupposition.


You cannot steal or commit perjury when the records are owned by Hillary, and the presupposition here is simply to create the false impression that somebody did something wrong......these propaganda techniques always find headlines for a week and then slip into oblivion upon simple application of facts.....the form means nothing and it is a logical fallacy.

As you well know, the documents and records are all owned by the GOVERNMENT, not Hillary, Bill or Chelsea.

Couldn't do it could you? Let's try it again, I'll type slowly for your benefit.
"Before the Progressives start whining, simply present us with legitimate copies of both forms. If you cannot, then you're just whining aren't you?"

If she did not sign the document, and a witness did not sign a similar document saying she turned over ALL documents and records.  She is guilty of theft.  If she DID sign the document, she is guilty of PERJURY.

You know how well PERJURY worked out for former President Bill Clinton.

How well did erasing 17 1/2 minutes of audio tape work out for former President Nixon?

Floridatexan wrote:

KarlRove wrote:

Floridatexan wrote:
What a heap of excrement.  Dig deeper...you might find something that would stick.  Pathetic.

It's like a non-disclosure agreement batwinger...not that you've ever put your ass on the line to sign one.

Actually, I was bonded at the age of 17 because I worked in a bank, dumbass.  

2seaoat wrote:She used the server for official govt business. Emails of SOS are public owned

Nope.  The email records are owned by Hillary Clinton.  No law changes the ownership under property law.   Statue requires that records which may be government business cannot be knowingly destroyed, and could be a crime if someone did the same.  Additionally, if Hillary failed to document those emails which were government business, and failed to turn over the same, she may be guilty of a crime, particularly if she knowingly destroyed the same, even though she owned the hard drive and the data on the same.

The use of a logical fallacy with this type of presupposition is one of the oldest propaganda techniques, and its value is not the truth, but the illusion of a violation of the law where none exists.

Too funny.....the guy who attacked Hillary six years ago and who was relentlessly attacked on the PNJ, is now a Hillary supporter who is blinded by loyalty.......again too funny, but when people are going to lie, and promulgate propaganda......I will always expose the same.   This is really sophomoric.  At least do a better job in your use of logical fallacies.

KarlRove wrote:

Floridatexan wrote:

KarlRove wrote:

Floridatexan wrote:
What a heap of excrement.  Dig deeper...you might find something that would stick.  Pathetic.

It's like a non-disclosure agreement batwinger...not that you've ever put your ass on the line to sign one.

Actually, I was bonded at the age of 17 because I worked in a bank, dumbass.  

Hey broomrider....bonded and TS/SCI information are two different things. Of course, you wouldn't know because you've never been privilege any information that is important.

2seaoat wrote:As you well know, the documents and records are all owned by the GOVERNMENT,

Wrong again.  The documents and records on her server are HERS.  Under government regulation if a record contains government business, she has a duty to turn over those records.   It is a crime if she destroys those records, but at NO time does the government own those records on her hard drive.  You need to take a property law case, and for a real estate person not to understand this concept of property law.....well can we get a big duh.  She owns the records.  If there are government records which were destroyed even if it is her property, she may be guilty of a crime.  Again an absurd presupposition which you attempted to repeat to make it the law and the truth....sorry.......you are in left field pulling daisies.