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.
Why did Condoleeza Rice and Colin Powell use private email? Why didn't they turn them over to investigators?
How many angels can dance upon this head of the pin?
Why did Condoleeza Rice and Colin Powell use private email? Why didn't they turn them over to investigators?
How many angels can dance upon this head of the pin?
So your argument is: That if it is good for one; it should be good for the other? I don't care if you want to throw all thee in jail! The only question I have is what was the technology then and what is it now - as well as what was the law then and what is it now? If all three of them broke existing laws; then all three of them should have been punished accordingly.
I just don't see that as an excuse for Hillary's actions - especially since she is a lawyer!
Hillary knew this job was above her ability and that she would certainly **** it up.
She also knew that when she did, the people holding her accountable (Congress) would want to see her E-mails in order to determine where, when and how she ****ed up.
Additionally, records indicating what she knew and when she knew it (like official E-mails) would severely limit her ability to lie and blame others for her many personal **** ups.
To have an unalterable official archive of her understandings, intentions and actions at the ready would mean the world would potentially see the real Hillary in all her incompetent glory.
The greater risk for Hillary was to not hide her E-mails.
If all three of them broke existing laws; then all three of them should have been punished accordingly.
I just don't see that as an excuse for Hillary's actions - especially since she is a lawyer!
I don't think the laws prohibiting using private email for govt purposes were enacted until 2014? Dunno.
I could be wrong. You're the one gnashing teeth over it, cite the specific laws they broke and carry on.
Why did Condoleeza Rice and Colin Powell use private email? Why didn't they turn them over to investigators?
How many angels can dance upon this head of the pin?
So your argument is: That if it is good for one; it should be good for the other? I don't care if you want to throw all thee in jail! The only question I have is what was the technology then and what is it now - as well as what was the law then and what is it now? If all three of them broke existing laws; then all three of them should have been punished accordingly.
I just don't see that as an excuse for Hillary's actions - especially since she is a lawyer!
It gives you context doesn't it, if everyone jaywalks but you want to conduct an investigation on how to punish me for jaywalking don't mind if I roll my eyes. It comes down to the same thing for the last 40 years in American politics you want crap or crap lite, lesser of two evils according to my priorities, no way I'll vote for Trump or Cruz no matter what and it's not even about the candidates is about the people who support them, people who want to ban religions, who rally against multiculturalism who want a homogeneous society, the silliness of the alllivesmatter crowd...... The list is huge, I personally think this whole crusade against Hillary started too soon it's all noise at this point, true or false is hardly relevant when it's been so toxic and politicized since day one, it's a bit of a boy who cried wolf scenario.
Last edited by DUNNDFRNT; 01-25-2016 at 05:41 AM..
It gives you context doesn't it, if everyone jaywalks but you want to conduct an investigation on how to punish me for jaywalking don't mind if I roll my eyes. It comes down to the same thing for the last 40 years in American politics you want crap or crap lite, lesser of two evils according to my priorities, no way I'll vote for Trump or Cruz no matter what and it's not even about the candidates is about the people who support them, people who want to ban religions, who rally against multiculturalism who want a homogeneous society, the silliness of the alllivesmatter crowd...... The list is huge, I personally think this whole crusade against Hillary started too soon it's all noise at this point, true or false is hardly relevant when it's been so toxic and politicized since day one, it's a bit of a boy who cried wolf scenario.
I am a Trump supporter. For the last several years I have been training immigrants to take our tech jobs. I am not a racist; I think that many of the immigrants are good, hard working, employees that deserve the jobs I am training them for. But it is clear that we have turned our backs on our own. We made this system that rewards employers that favor immigrants. Our poor are getting poorer and we are loosing our middle-class; even with Democrats that claim they are our saviors!
As far as banning a religion. The only remarks I have heard are that we have to have better screening (vetting) procedures in place. Of course some racist always show up; that's the nature of the beast. It isn't that Muslims don't have some problems; just like Christians have problems. To favor any nation that is the birthplace of ISIS is foolish; we are only asking for trouble. There are many other countries with immigrants in dire straights.
It distills down to the core beliefs and essence of what a liberal is- a totalitarian. Totalitarians of all stripes, liberals included, do not believe in uniform enforcement of the law and truely believe that there are "enlightened" individuals who are above the law.
Keep in mind that even Marx, in Das Kapital, did not mind monarchies and the concept of "enlightened rulers" over the proliteriat.
HRC did it because she is a lawyer and lawyers are like artists with wordsmithing their forte. What do you see? is the question they ask. HRC interpreted the law in a way that favored her along with a legal strategy to support her actions.
That is why lawyers need to be banned as legislators. They pass laws no one can understand and constantly apply a latitude of interpretation that more often than not crosses the line of legality and intent. Takes years of appeals and reversals to figure out if someone broke the law.
When a lawyer says, 'you can keep your doctor, if you like your doctor. PERIOD!
What do you think he means? Suppose that lawyer is the Prez?
When a lawyer tells you to fire a shot into the air to scare away a robber, can you believe you won't be charged with a felony? Suppose that lawyer is the VP?
When a lawyer tells you the video caused the attack, can you believe her?
when the USAG/lawyer gives several judges/lawyers, false information to get a warrant to spy on a journalist, can you ever again trust the DOJ under that lawyer president?
the more important question is, why is hilary not being prosecuted for this crime? when any normal American would already be in court.
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.
