There is no way WE (the USA) could really do anything about carbon emissions, unless you just want people to needlessly die and the USA be remanded back to third world status.

It's comments like this that really get my goat. There are options between doing nothing and becoming a third world country. The President's plan wouldn't make us a third world country and it will decrease our carbon emissions.

Oh, BTW, closing coal powered plans will actually reduce deaths in the US; and, you know what, it's already happening! See Death and Disease from Power Plants. The numbers of deaths attributable to pollution from power plants has gone down significantly in the last 15 years.

What a ridiculous analogy!

In your comparison the police were looking for "documents" so destroying "documents" would be wrong.

In the case of Ms. Clinton, a certain subset of a certain kind of document were requested. None of those were destroyed.

To be close to a valid analogy, the fire in the house would be fed by firewood. That wood could be turned into paper, which could then be a document, which ... no, it's just too ridiculous.

Just realized you jumped into the middle of a conversation, and it wasn't you that I had been conversing with and it was not you that wrote the quote I included.

Very odd choice, I must say, to post that comment where you did since it had nothing to do with the thread.

I'm not sure what your point was. The State Department hasn't turned over some emails from a certain period of time. So what?

No, I thought you had walked away from this. My last comment was Saturday, you waited 4 days to respond. Then after 1 day you accuse me of something? That's nonsense.

Again, you are confusing what the State Department has released and what Ms. Clinton turned over. We have no idea if there is a real gap.

The statutes you quote don't say what you think they say.

Section 3105 is about process. Did she make items 1, 2, and 3 known to her department? Yes, memos of that have been quoted in a vain attempt to prove she broke her own policies.

Section 3301 defines email as an official record. She knew that, that's why she turned them over.

Section 3302 is about duties of the Archivist and has nothing to do with Ms. Clinton.

Section 3303 is about the department providing information of what the department is maintaining to the archivist. Again, not relevant in this instance.

You still have come close to backing up your claim. Let me quote you again, just in case you forgot:

when you are under investigation, rules get stricter, and nothing should be deleted until checked out.

Of course the PR is bad. People are trying to damage her politically.

We're not talking about a Congressional investigation into the death of a US ambassador at all. We already know everything there is to know about what happened in Benghazi. Multiple commissions have all come to the same conclusions. This is a political sideshow, one that's driven by the GOP, one that's designed to last as long as possible. The longer it lasts, the more possible political damage it can do.

If I was a fan of the GOP I'd be pissed. They should be governing, not playing politics.

I thought it was obvious what you said that was demonstrably wrong, but I'll quote you.

Well, that and the word (or actions) of Sidney Blumenthal who turned over work emails which she didn't.

We don't know if she turned over the emails or not. All we know is that the State Department hasn't provided all of them to the Congressional committee.

Your whole line of argument about the strictness of the law and smoking gun completely misses the point. You said something that wasn't true. Not only isn't there a smoking gun, but contrary to your claim, "There is already ample evidence suggesting of mishandling of classified information.", there isn't evidence of any wrongdoing. There's a lot of allegations like yours, but that's all.

You are really missing the point. You wrote,

It was HER responsibility to turn over all documents

Yes, it was, and, as far as we know, she did. There has been no proof to the contrary, just claims like yours.

Tell me, does the statute say that she has to do either of those things? Here's the answer - no.

No, I'm asking you to prove a claim. You wrote,

when you are under investigation, rules get stricter, and nothing should be deleted until checked out.

in response to my statement that she performed within the law.

I asked if you were sure, and you said you were. So prove it. Government document retention is governed by statute. If the policy changes when being asked to testify by a Congressional committee, I'd like to read that.

Government statute includes guidelines as to what needs to be retained. Employees decide based on those guidelines what to retain and what not to retain.

The DoJ isn't involved. There is no criminal case. Congress doesn't have the right to decide what you can do with personal documents.

I suspect you're right. The GOP extremists keep claiming, "We've got her now!" and then nothing comes of it. The majority of Americans are already tired of it. Soon, they'll stick their fingers in the ears anytime anyone mentions it because they think only a kook would still care.

No, I'm sorry, you are failing to understand what happened.

The State Department has not turned over every email that the committee has access to; that doesn't mean that Ms. Clinton didn't give them to the State Department.

The classification situation is all about the process the State Department uses to classify material. It has nothing to do with Ms. Clinton.

You keep proving my point. The State Department cannot locate them. That does not mean Ms. Clinton did not turn them over.

Your take on what the IGs said is backwards. They said that State should have deemed the material classified. It didn't. That's not Ms. Clinton's fault.

Clearly you have a belief of what happened and are trying to make reality fit that belief. Good luck with that.

Okay, since you're sure it's true, please cite the statute that says when a person has been asked to testify before a Congressional committee, they lose the right to dispose of personal documents.