Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Do you understand the implications of Kevin McCarthy's comments about the Benghazi committee?
It strongly implies the Benghazi investigations are all bogus partisan tactics on the part of conservatives.
You can't justify bogus hearings on what secondary stuff they uncover.
First of all, you dodged my question. Is that a sore subject for you?
Secondly, the secondary stuff being uncovered could very well be deemed criminal. Did Watergate initially implicate Richard Nixon, or were those just bogus hearings out to get the President?
Certainly you would agree without all of Clinton's emails there is no way to complete this investigation? Yes or No?
If the answer is yes then you would also have to agree that it's Hillary fault becsue of the private server, 50k pages of printed emails with no meta data, stonewalling, wiping of data, new emails popping up here and there and the plethora of other issues that are entirely her own doing. She did this to herself and don't be surprised if you see indictments in the very near future.
Indeed, as said "raising suspicion" upon herself.....in many ways too.
But why cooperate with people you know are out to distort and dig up anything they can find on you?
For starters those emails belong to us, not her. She doesn't have a choice in the matter, they should have never been under her control to begin with.
Quote:
Hillary has my sympathy on this and also rightly so. And then again, the stonewalling might have been just a counter tactic to milk the craziness of republicans for as long as possible on something that maybe never have involved any real illegality at root. Like the long from birth certificate.
Comparing this to the birth certificate issue, which was initiated by Hilliary's supporters to begin with, tells me you don't understand the magnitude of what is going on here. There is federal laws that have been broken and that fact is not something that is debatable, if she was a line employee she would have already been arrested.
First of all, you dodged my question. Is that a sore subject for you?
Secondly, the secondary stuff being uncovered could very well be deemed criminal. Did Watergate initially implicate Richard Nixon, or were those just bogus hearings out to get the President?
In Watergate we didn't have a representative imply the investigations were for partisan
purposes.
It's not a sore subject at all.
Let's get to the heart of the email investigation. What are republicans implying? Where's the end game? That Hillary purposely chose an insecure email account so she could be hacked by the Russians?
What would be the purpose for committing the "criminal" activity? Was there some kind of monetary gain for Hillary for using Gmail?
Was there some kind of monetary gain for Hillary for using Gmail?
You need to research this topic a little more, she wasn't using a gmail account. She was using a private server that was physically sitting in her house which is a whole other ballgame. This gives her total control of the email records. The only communications that would be verifiable would be those sent to other government email addresses becsue you can search those other accounts, anything else can go *poof* and magically disappear without a trace on her end.
In Watergate we didn't have a representative imply the investigations were for partisan
purposes.
It's not a sore subject at all.
Let's get to the heart of the email investigation. What are republicans implying? Where's the end game? That Hillary purposely chose an insecure email account so she could be hacked by the Russians?
What would be the purpose for committing the "criminal" activity? Was there some kind of monetary gain for Hillary for using Gmail?
What's the pay off for Hillary in this "crime"?
1. You don't think Democrats wanted Nixon's blood after sending people to break into their national headquarters? Keep using that Sanders logic of yours....
2. The email controversy has many facets to it. Why was she trying to hide her emails from Congressional oversight? Why was she discussing sensitive information with people who did not have security clearances, like Sid Blumenthal? Why was Sid Blumenthal trying to push Hillary into war with Libya when he has business ventures that would have done well there? Why did she delete emails that obviously were not personal (including the ones to Sid Blumenthal)? Why was she sending and storing classified intel, like North Korean spy photos, out through an unsecured server? When you can answer all of these questions, then I'll believe that the whole committee is a sham.
3. Well, for starters, the Clintons got donations for their "charitable" foundation after some of Hillary's decisions at the State Department, so it ended up being quite a large payoff.
Either of these absurdities will not make me vote against Ms. Clinton in the Democratic primary. I simply do not trust her to do anything that might upset her past or current political sponsors and campaign contributors.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Hillary Fans, Please Answer These Questions that Will be Posed on October 22nd
