What's new
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

Official Hillary Clinton 2016 thread (6 Viewers)

Status
Not open for further replies.
Obama’s Comments on Clinton Emails Collide With F.B.I. InquiryFederal agents were still cataloging the classified information from Hillary Rodham Clinton’s personal email server last week when President Obama went on television and played down the matter.

“I don’t think it posed a national security problem,” Mr. Obama said Sunday on CBS’s “60 Minutes.” He said it was a mistake for Mrs. Clinton to use a private email account when she was secretary of state, but his conclusion was unmistakable: “This is not a situation in which America’s national security was endangered.”

Those statements angered F.B.I. agents who have been working for months to determine whether Ms. Clinton’s email setup had in fact put any of the nation’s secrets at risk, according to current and former law enforcement officials.

Investigators have not reached any conclusions about whether the information on the server had been compromised or whether to recommend charges, according to the law enforcement officials. But to investigators, it sounded as if Mr. Obama had already decided the answers to their questions and cleared anyone involved of wrongdoing.

The White House quickly backed off the president’s remarks and said Mr. Obama was not trying to influence the investigation. But his comments spread quickly, raising the ire of officials who saw an instance of the president trying to influence the outcome of a continuing investigation — and not for the first time.

A spokesman for the F.B.I. declined to comment. But Ron Hosko, a former senior F.B.I. official who retired in 2014 and is now the president of the Law Enforcement Legal Defense Fund, said it was inappropriate for the president to “suggest what side of the investigation he is on” when the F.B.I. is still investigating.

“Injecting politics into what is supposed to be a fact-finding inquiry leaves a foul taste in the F.B.I.’s mouth and makes them fear that no matter what they find, the Justice Department will take the president’s signal and not bring a case,” said Mr. Hosko, who maintains close contact with current agents.

Several current and former law enforcement officials, including those close to the investigation, expressed similar sentiments in separate interviews over several days. Most, however, did so only on condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to speak publicly about the case.

...Whether Mr. Obama’s remarks have a lasting effect beyond upsetting some F.B.I. officials depends on the investigation’s outcome. Since the email inquiry began this past summer, investigators have been scrutinizing everyone who came in contact with her server and trying to determine whether anyone sent or received classified information, whether that information was compromised and whether any of this amounted to a crime.

...But Mr. Obama’s remarks in the Clinton email case were met with particular anger at the F.B.I. because they echoed comments he made in 2012, shortly after it was revealed that a former C.I.A. director, David H. Petraeus, was under investigation, accused of providing classified information to a mistress who was writing a book about him.

“I have no evidence at this point, from what I’ve seen, that classified information was disclosed that in any way would have had a negative impact on our national security,” the president said at a 2012 news conference, as the F.B.I. was trying to answer that very question about Mr. Petraeus.

...
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/10/17/us/politics/obamas-comments-on-clinton-emails-collide-with-fbi-inquiry.html?_r=0

- The reason the Feds have recently expanded the inquiry into Hillary's server recently to servers at the State Dept and at Datto, the CT vendor, is that they (IMO) are most likely trying to piece together the entire history of Hillary's data history, and as the NYT points out they are doing so to determine what crimes if any took place and by whom.

They are doing that because the investigation is continuing and they have cause to expand it further, thus they believe a crime may have been committed.

It's also funny that Pres. Obama almost said the exact same thing about the Gen. Petraeus investigation.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Anderson Cooper says he ‘knew’ Sanders would ‘shut down’ Hillary Clinton e-mail inquiryMuch political chatter this week focused on a pivotal moment at Tuesday night’s CNN Democratic debate in Las Vegas: “I think the secretary is right, and that is that the American people are sick and tired of hearing about your damn e-mails,” said Sen. Bernie Sanders to former secretary of state Hillary Clinton. Sanders was called upon to address the Democratic front-runner’s ongoing e-mail controversy after Clinton issued her standard defense.

The Vermont senator’s defense brought an uproarious reaction from the crowd at the Wynn Las Vegas. Though hopefuls Lincoln Chafee and Martin O’Malley both chimed in on the e-mail stuff, Sanders had pretty well snuffed out the issue. “Thank you, Bernie. Thank you,” said Clinton after Sanders had ripped the e-mail stuff as a campaign-trail issue.

In a chat with former New York Times television reporter Bill Carter on the SiriusXM show “The Bill Carter Interview,” Cooper put this moment in his basket of regrets over his handling of the debate. “I wish I had brought in one other candidate before I went to Sanders on the email thing because I knew Sanders would try to shut it down,” said the debate host. Perhaps that would have been a better way to go, though there was no guarantee. After all, Chafee commented that the e-mails drive at a credibility crisis in American politics. When Cooper asked Clinton whether she wanted to respond, she said, “No,”...

...
https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/erik-wemple/wp/2015/10/16/anderson-cooper-says-he-knew-sanders-would-shut-down-hillary-clinton-e-mail-inquiry/

Here's Hillary when asked about "FBI officials looking into whether national security has been compromised" [note, if reading only, insert maniacal laughter here___]:

And again:

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Anderson Cooper says he ‘knew’ Sanders would ‘shut down’ Hillary Clinton e-mail inquiryMuch political chatter this week focused on a pivotal moment at Tuesday night’s CNN Democratic debate in Las Vegas: “I think the secretary is right, and that is that the American people are sick and tired of hearing about your damn e-mails,” said Sen. Bernie Sanders to former secretary of state Hillary Clinton. Sanders was called upon to address the Democratic front-runner’s ongoing e-mail controversy after Clinton issued her standard defense.

The Vermont senator’s defense brought an uproarious reaction from the crowd at the Wynn Las Vegas. Though hopefuls Lincoln Chafee and Martin O’Malley both chimed in on the e-mail stuff, Sanders had pretty well snuffed out the issue. “Thank you, Bernie. Thank you,” said Clinton after Sanders had ripped the e-mail stuff as a campaign-trail issue.

In a chat with former New York Times television reporter Bill Carter on the SiriusXM show “The Bill Carter Interview,” Cooper put this moment in his basket of regrets over his handling of the debate. “I wish I had brought in one other candidate before I went to Sanders on the email thing because I knew Sanders would try to shut it down,” said the debate host. Perhaps that would have been a better way to go, though there was no guarantee. After all, Chafee commented that the e-mails drive at a credibility crisis in American politics. When Cooper asked Clinton whether she wanted to respond, she said, “No,”...

...
https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/erik-wemple/wp/2015/10/16/anderson-cooper-says-he-knew-sanders-would-shut-down-hillary-clinton-e-mail-inquiry/

Here's Hillary when asked about "FBI officials looking into whether national security has been compromised" [note, if reading only, insert maniacal laughter here___]:

And again:

Just saw that video. Laughing out load at that question? Is she ####ing insane?

 
Brian Fallon ‏@brianefallon

.@LukeRussert: Benghazi Committee Repubs' plan is to force @HillaryClinton to stay in witness chair for hours in hopes she will "break"
They are obviously hoping, at the very least, for another sound bite they can take out of context (see "What difference does it make?") and with hours of testimony they may get their wish.

However, this plan could also backfire and an intense grilling of Hillary for hours asking variations on the same questions over-and-over again could make her come across as a sympathetic figure who is being harassed by this committee for political reasons only (which several Republicans have essentially already admitted).

 
Are you kidding me? She's already broke. Did you see that maniacal laugh? Don't be surprised if that's in a campaign ad.

 
Oh man, have you ever seen Fallon?

Let's remember Hillary has repeatedly stated she is begging to testify.

Also the committee offered Hillary two sessions focused on two issues, she insisted on one, unlimited time without limitation to issues.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
I agree that it will be a battle of gotcha/meltdown vs Pathos though.

I hope it's dry and boring, and informative, but I seriously doubt it.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
So, is this testimony going to be closed to the public?

Seems odd that Clinton would get any sympathy without video proof that she was being harassed. On the flip side, with no video she will spin this however she wants.

Feels like the public should see this to decide for themselves.

 
So, is this testimony going to be closed to the public?

Seems odd that Clinton would get any sympathy without video proof that she was being harassed. On the flip side, with no video she will spin this however she wants.

Feels like the public should see this to decide for themselves.
She can spin all she wants. The majority of people know she's full of crap.

 
So, is this testimony going to be closed to the public?

Seems odd that Clinton would get any sympathy without video proof that she was being harassed. On the flip side, with no video she will spin this however she wants.

Feels like the public should see this to decide for themselves.
It's going to be public.

 
So, is this testimony going to be closed to the public?

Seems odd that Clinton would get any sympathy without video proof that she was being harassed. On the flip side, with no video she will spin this however she wants.

Feels like the public should see this to decide for themselves.
She can spin all she wants. The majority of people know she's full of crap.
The majority of the public, I suspect, will see what a farce this committee is, and that Hillary has really done nothing wrong.
 
So, is this testimony going to be closed to the public?

Seems odd that Clinton would get any sympathy without video proof that she was being harassed. On the flip side, with no video she will spin this however she wants.

Feels like the public should see this to decide for themselves.
It's going to be public.
That makes more sense - I had read something this morning that suggested it would be a closed session - which did not make sense on either side.

 
So, is this testimony going to be closed to the public?

Seems odd that Clinton would get any sympathy without video proof that she was being harassed. On the flip side, with no video she will spin this however she wants.

Feels like the public should see this to decide for themselves.
It's going to be public.
That makes more sense - I had read something this morning that suggested it would be a closed session - which did not make sense on either side.
It made plenty of sense for the committee.
 
Brian Fallon ‏@brianefallon

.@LukeRussert: Benghazi Committee Repubs' plan is to force @HillaryClinton to stay in witness chair for hours in hopes she will "break"
They are obviously hoping, at the very least, for another sound bite they can take out of context (see "What difference does it make?") and with hours of testimony they may get their wish.

However, this plan could also backfire and an intense grilling of Hillary for hours asking variations on the same questions over-and-over again could make her come across as a sympathetic figure who is being harassed by this committee for political reasons only (which several Republicans have essentially already admitted).
LOL at "What difference does it make?" being taken out of context.

That said, the Republicans are pretty clueless, meaning they will botch this. You can almost set your watch to it. :lol:

 
So, is this testimony going to be closed to the public?

Seems odd that Clinton would get any sympathy without video proof that she was being harassed. On the flip side, with no video she will spin this however she wants.

Feels like the public should see this to decide for themselves.
It's going to be public.
That makes more sense - I had read something this morning that suggested it would be a closed session - which did not make sense on either side.
It made plenty of sense for the committee.
Public hearing makes most sense for both sides - assuming you believe each others motives.

GOP want a chance to drag Clinton through the mud. Clinton wants to show people that GOP only wants to drag her through the mud.

Its a shame that neither side are interested in a transparent investigation into what happened in Benghazi - before the attack, and after the attack. And what lessons can we learn to avoid a similar situation in the future.

 
So, is this testimony going to be closed to the public?

Seems odd that Clinton would get any sympathy without video proof that she was being harassed. On the flip side, with no video she will spin this however she wants.

Feels like the public should see this to decide for themselves.
She can spin all she wants. The majority of people know she's full of crap.
The majority of the public, I suspect, will see what a farce this committee is, and that Hillary has really done nothing wrong.
Stop. The committee may well be a farce (judging from who's running it, most likely is), but Hillary has done plenty wrong. She's hidden documents and obstructed as much as possible.

 
Public hearing makes most sense for both sides - assuming you believe each others motives.

GOP want a chance to drag Clinton through the mud. Clinton wants to show people that GOP only wants to drag her through the mud.

Its a shame that neither side are interested in a transparent investigation into what happened in Benghazi - before the attack, and after the attack. And what lessons can we learn to avoid a similar situation in the future.
Totally agree. Neither side comes off looking good here (unless you are so far up your own ### with your ideology).

 
Huma is testifying today behind closed doors. For some reason, Trey Gowdy is not there.

According to CNN, Huma is being asked ONLY about the nights of 9/11/12 and 9/12/12 and how Hillary and the Obama administration reacted to the Benghazi crisis. This seems very odd to me, since Huma wasn't even there. Contrary to prior reports, she is NOT being asked about the email server, nor is she being asked about her work in the private sector at the same time as she was working for Hillary Clinton.

What is the purpose of this hearing?
If they were asking about the emails you would be complaining that the committee was just on a witch hunt to get Hillary.

Shouldn't they be asking questions about Benghazi, since they are a committee investigating the attack on the embassy in Benghazi?
I don't think they should be asking any questions. I think they should apologize to her, to Hillary, to the public, disband the committee, and then resign from office in disgrace.
I've been preaching this for years. Get all the people out of office who "act" this way....get all new faces and start fresh. Hold them all to this standard and you're on to something, but that requires kicking Hillary to the curb too Tim. I'm not sure you'd be able to handle it.

 
The majority of the public, I suspect, will see what a farce this committee is, and that Hillary has really done nothing wrong.
What would he think if he learned that Russia’s Foreign Minister, or Iran’s, was conducting official business on a homebrew server?

Admiral Rogers: "From a foreign intelligence perspective, that represents opportunity."
 
So, is this testimony going to be closed to the public?

Seems odd that Clinton would get any sympathy without video proof that she was being harassed. On the flip side, with no video she will spin this however she wants.

Feels like the public should see this to decide for themselves.
She can spin all she wants. The majority of people know she's full of crap.
The majority of the public, I suspect, will see what a farce this committee is, and that Hillary has really done nothing wrong.
Stop. The committee may well be a farce (judging from who's running it, most likely is), but Hillary has done plenty wrong. She's hidden documents and obstructed as much as possible.
No, she hasn't.

 
So, is this testimony going to be closed to the public?

Seems odd that Clinton would get any sympathy without video proof that she was being harassed. On the flip side, with no video she will spin this however she wants.

Feels like the public should see this to decide for themselves.
It's going to be public.
That makes more sense - I had read something this morning that suggested it would be a closed session - which did not make sense on either side.
It made plenty of sense for the committee.
Agreed.

 
So, is this testimony going to be closed to the public?

Seems odd that Clinton would get any sympathy without video proof that she was being harassed. On the flip side, with no video she will spin this however she wants.

Feels like the public should see this to decide for themselves.
She can spin all she wants. The majority of people know she's full of crap.
The majority of the public, I suspect, will see what a farce this committee is, and that Hillary has really done nothing wrong.
Stop. The committee may well be a farce (judging from who's running it, most likely is), but Hillary has done plenty wrong. She's hidden documents and obstructed as much as possible.
I don't believe that. There's no evidence of it.
 
Public hearing makes most sense for both sides - assuming you believe each others motives.GOP want a chance to drag Clinton through the mud. Clinton wants to show people that GOP only wants to drag her through the mud.

Its a shame that neither side are interested in a transparent investigation into what happened in Benghazi - before the attack, and after the attack. And what lessons can we learn to avoid a similar situation in the future.
Totally agree. Neither side comes off looking good here (unless you are so far up your own ### with your ideology).
This is the latest mantra I've been hearing from conservatives: yeah the committee may be schmucks but Hillary did stuff wrong so both sides are bad. It's not going to fly. There remains NO actual evidence that Hillary has done anything wrong.
 
Brian Beutler ‏@brianbeutler ·

Gowdy fabricated redactions on to Clinton's email to make it look like she'd outed a spy. http://democrats.benghazi.house.gov/news/press-releases/cia-debunks-gowdy-s-allegation-that-clinton-email-contained-classified-cia
CIA Debunks Gowdys Allegation That Clinton Email Contained Classified CIA Source

[...]

To further inflate your claim, you placed your own redactions over the name of the individual with the words, redacted due to sources and methods. To be clear, these redactions were not made, and these words were not added, by any agency of the federal government responsible for enforcing classification guidelines.

Predictably, commentators began repeating your accusations in even more extreme terms, suggesting in headlines for example that "Clinton Burns CIA Libya Contact."

Contrary to your claims, the CIA yesterday informed both the Republican and Democratic staffs of the Select Committee that they do not consider the information you highlighted in your letter to be classified. Specifically, the CIA confirmed that "the State Department consulted with the CIA on this production, the CIA reviewed these documents, and the CIA made no redactions to protect classified information."

Unfortunately, you sent your letter on October 7 without checking first with the CIA. Now that we have done so, we have learned that your accusations were incorrect.

As a result of your actions, the State Department yesterday asked the Select Committee not to reveal the individuals name publicly, not for classification reasons, but to protect the individuals privacy and avoid bringing additional undue attention to this person.

Unfortunately, the standard operating procedure of this Select Committee has become to put out information publicly that is inaccurate and out of context in order to attack Secretary Clinton for political reasons. These repeated actions bring discredit on this investigation and undermine the integrity of the Select Committee and the House of Representatives.
 
The committee wanted it closed. Hilary insisted that it be public.
Inaccurate, they offered a closed session on the email and a second public session on the Libyan policy issues. Hillary insisted on one long all day public session. The committe also offered Hillary to provide answers to the email issues in writing instead of a hearing, she refused.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
So, is this testimony going to be closed to the public?

Seems odd that Clinton would get any sympathy without video proof that she was being harassed. On the flip side, with no video she will spin this however she wants.

Feels like the public should see this to decide for themselves.
She can spin all she wants. The majority of people know she's full of crap.
The majority of the public, I suspect, will see what a farce this committee is, and that Hillary has really done nothing wrong.
But she has done a lot wrong. No way anyone gets away with mishandling classified material as badly as Hillary did. No ####### way.

 
The irony is that this committee is providig a perfect example of why Hillary wanted a separate server in the first place.
No government official should want or have a private email server to hide things from congress.
When that public official knows that her private emails are going to examined, mischaracterized, and misconstrued for political reasons, he/she absolutely would want a mechanism in place to shield that data from the inevitable political shenanigans.

 
The irony is that this committee is providig a perfect example of why Hillary wanted a separate server in the first place.
No government official should want or have a private email server to hide things from congress.
When that public official knows that her private emails are going to examined, mischaracterized, and misconstrued for political reasons, he/she absolutely would want a mechanism in place to shield that data from the inevitable political shenanigans.
Sure - thats called "Don't send private emails at work"

I think most companies actually have the same policy - if you send a private email on the company server, they are entitled to read it/save it/ preserve it as with any emial under their document retention policy.

Honestly can't believe you are making these arguments...

 
The irony is that this committee is providig a perfect example of why Hillary wanted a separate server in the first place.
No government official should want or have a private email server to hide things from congress.
When that public official knows that her private emails are going to examined, mischaracterized, and misconstrued for political reasons, he/she absolutely would want a mechanism in place to shield that data from the inevitable political shenanigans.
Sure - thats called "Don't send private emails at work"

I think most companies actually have the same policy - if you send a private email on the company server, they are entitled to read it/save it/ preserve it as with any emial under their document retention policy.

Honestly can't believe you are making these arguments...
What time does the Secretary of State get off of work?

 
The irony is that this committee is providig a perfect example of why Hillary wanted a separate server in the first place.
No government official should want or have a private email server to hide things from congress.
When that public official knows that her private emails are going to examined, mischaracterized, and misconstrued for political reasons, he/she absolutely would want a mechanism in place to shield that data from the inevitable political shenanigans.
Sure - thats called "Don't send private emails at work"

I think most companies actually have the same policy - if you send a private email on the company server, they are entitled to read it/save it/ preserve it as with any emial under their document retention policy.

Honestly can't believe you are making these arguments...
What time does the Secretary of State get off of work?
I give up.

What time?

 
The irony is that this committee is providig a perfect example of why Hillary wanted a separate server in the first place.
No government official should want or have a private email server to hide things from congress.
When that public official knows that her private emails are going to examined, mischaracterized, and misconstrued for political reasons, he/she absolutely would want a mechanism in place to shield that data from the inevitable political shenanigans.
Come on. If a Republican were doing this for those reasons you'd be screaming bloody murder.

 
So, is this testimony going to be closed to the public?

Seems odd that Clinton would get any sympathy without video proof that she was being harassed. On the flip side, with no video she will spin this however she wants.

Feels like the public should see this to decide for themselves.
She can spin all she wants. The majority of people know she's full of crap.
The majority of the public, I suspect, will see what a farce this committee is, and that Hillary has really done nothing wrong.
Stop. The committee may well be a farce (judging from who's running it, most likely is), but Hillary has done plenty wrong. She's hidden documents and obstructed as much as possible.
It's clear that Clinton-haters think that there is some number of times they make such thunderous proclamations that will eventually break the plane of the goal line and suddenly make them allllll true. In reality, not so much.

 
So, is this testimony going to be closed to the public?

Seems odd that Clinton would get any sympathy without video proof that she was being harassed. On the flip side, with no video she will spin this however she wants.

Feels like the public should see this to decide for themselves.
She can spin all she wants. The majority of people know she's full of crap.
The majority of the public, I suspect, will see what a farce this committee is, and that Hillary has really done nothing wrong.
Stop. The committee may well be a farce (judging from who's running it, most likely is), but Hillary has done plenty wrong. She's hidden documents and obstructed as much as possible.
It's clear that Clinton-haters think that there is some number of times they make such thunderous proclamations that will eventually break the plane of the goal line and suddenly make them allllll true. In reality, not so much.
it's clear the Hillary lovers are unwilling to pull their head out of the sand.

 
The irony is that this committee is providig a perfect example of why Hillary wanted a separate server in the first place.
No government official should want or have a private email server to hide things from congress.
When that public official knows that her private emails are going to examined, mischaracterized, and misconstrued for political reasons, he/she absolutely would want a mechanism in place to shield that data from the inevitable political shenanigans.
Come on. If a Republican were doing this for those reasons you'd be screaming bloody murder.
I wouldn't be. You'll have to take my word for it but I'm being very sincere.
 
So, is this testimony going to be closed to the public?

Seems odd that Clinton would get any sympathy without video proof that she was being harassed. On the flip side, with no video she will spin this however she wants.

Feels like the public should see this to decide for themselves.
She can spin all she wants. The majority of people know she's full of crap.
The majority of the public, I suspect, will see what a farce this committee is, and that Hillary has really done nothing wrong.
Stop. The committee may well be a farce (judging from who's running it, most likely is), but Hillary has done plenty wrong. She's hidden documents and obstructed as much as possible.
I don't believe that. There's no evidence of it.
You guys can bicker of the "obstructed" part, but there's no arguing that she didn't turn over everything.

 
The irony is that this committee is providig a perfect example of why Hillary wanted a separate server in the first place.
No government official should want or have a private email server to hide things from congress.
When that public official knows that her private emails are going to examined, mischaracterized, and misconstrued for political reasons, he/she absolutely would want a mechanism in place to shield that data from the inevitable political shenanigans.
It's called private email account somewhere else like google just like everyone else in the free world :shrug:

 
The irony is that this committee is providig a perfect example of why Hillary wanted a separate server in the first place.
No government official should want or have a private email server to hide things from congress.
When that public official knows that her private emails are going to examined, mischaracterized, and misconstrued for political reasons, he/she absolutely would want a mechanism in place to shield that data from the inevitable political shenanigans.
Come on. If a Republican were doing this for those reasons you'd be screaming bloody murder.
I wouldn't be. You'll have to take my word for it but I'm being very sincere.
I believe you. My post was TGunz-specific.

 
http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2015/10/_smoking_gun_emails_just_released_by_uk_daily_mail_prove_hillary_a_bigger_liar_than_tony_blair.html

Shades of FBIgate?

Why was Hillary Clinton transferring/extracting data from secure, and monitored, classified State Department data bases, into her non-secure private email server?
Wow. One would think that at some point the sheer volume of illegal acts is going to catch up to her here.
Yep - that would be my first clue if I were thinking for myself.

 
IvanKaramazov said:
tommyGunZ said:
Sinn Fein said:
tommyGunZ said:
The irony is that this committee is providig a perfect example of why Hillary wanted a separate server in the first place.
No government official should want or have a private email server to hide things from congress.
When that public official knows that her private emails are going to examined, mischaracterized, and misconstrued for political reasons, he/she absolutely would want a mechanism in place to shield that data from the inevitable political shenanigans.
Come on. If a Republican were doing this for those reasons you'd be screaming bloody murder.
But this did already happen, when Bush White House officials used email on an RNC server to conduct official White House business.

I'm not surprised you don't remember, because me and my side didn't scream "bloody murder". The false equivalency game is so ####### stale.

 
timschochet said:
Rich Conway said:
timschochet said:
So, is this testimony going to be closed to the public?

Seems odd that Clinton would get any sympathy without video proof that she was being harassed. On the flip side, with no video she will spin this however she wants.

Feels like the public should see this to decide for themselves.
She can spin all she wants. The majority of people know she's full of crap.
The majority of the public, I suspect, will see what a farce this committee is, and that Hillary has really done nothing wrong.
Stop. The committee may well be a farce (judging from who's running it, most likely is), but Hillary has done plenty wrong. She's hidden documents and obstructed as much as possible.
I don't believe that. There's no evidence of it.
Of course there's evidence of it. You just keep ignoring it, for some reason.

Simple question: did she, or did she not, turn over all the documents (e-mails) to which the committee was entitled, and asked for? You know perfectly well that she did not.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
timschochet said:
Rich Conway said:
timschochet said:
So, is this testimony going to be closed to the public?

Seems odd that Clinton would get any sympathy without video proof that she was being harassed. On the flip side, with no video she will spin this however she wants.

Feels like the public should see this to decide for themselves.
She can spin all she wants. The majority of people know she's full of crap.
The majority of the public, I suspect, will see what a farce this committee is, and that Hillary has really done nothing wrong.
Stop. The committee may well be a farce (judging from who's running it, most likely is), but Hillary has done plenty wrong. She's hidden documents and obstructed as much as possible.
I don't believe that. There's no evidence of it.
Of course there's evidence of it. You just keep ignoring it, for some reason.

Simple question: did she, or did she not, turn over all the documents (e-mails) to which the committee was entitled, and asked for? You know perfectly well that she did not.
It's a little more complicated than that, and you know it.

 
timschochet said:
Rich Conway said:
timschochet said:
So, is this testimony going to be closed to the public?

Seems odd that Clinton would get any sympathy without video proof that she was being harassed. On the flip side, with no video she will spin this however she wants.

Feels like the public should see this to decide for themselves.
She can spin all she wants. The majority of people know she's full of crap.
The majority of the public, I suspect, will see what a farce this committee is, and that Hillary has really done nothing wrong.
Stop. The committee may well be a farce (judging from who's running it, most likely is), but Hillary has done plenty wrong. She's hidden documents and obstructed as much as possible.
I don't believe that. There's no evidence of it.
Of course there's evidence of it. You just keep ignoring it, for some reason.

Simple question: did she, or did she not, turn over all the documents (e-mails) to which the committee was entitled, and asked for? You know perfectly well that she did not.
It's a little more complicated than that, and you know it.
How is it more complicated?

She was under subpoena to turn over those documents. We know from her buddy Blumenthal that she did not turn over all of the requested emails.

Seems rather simple imo.

You might argue that she simply couldn't "find" those emails - but that is not the same as saying she complied.

 
timschochet said:
Rich Conway said:
timschochet said:
So, is this testimony going to be closed to the public?

Seems odd that Clinton would get any sympathy without video proof that she was being harassed. On the flip side, with no video she will spin this however she wants.

Feels like the public should see this to decide for themselves.
She can spin all she wants. The majority of people know she's full of crap.
The majority of the public, I suspect, will see what a farce this committee is, and that Hillary has really done nothing wrong.
Stop. The committee may well be a farce (judging from who's running it, most likely is), but Hillary has done plenty wrong. She's hidden documents and obstructed as much as possible.
I don't believe that. There's no evidence of it.
Of course there's evidence of it. You just keep ignoring it, for some reason.

Simple question: did she, or did she not, turn over all the documents (e-mails) to which the committee was entitled, and asked for? You know perfectly well that she did not.
It's a little more complicated than that, and you know it.
How is it more complicated?

She was under subpoena to turn over those documents. We know from her buddy Blumenthal that she did not turn over all of the requested emails.

Seems rather simple imo.

You might argue that she simply couldn't "find" those emails - but that is not the same as saying she complied.
I worked in litigation for ~ 12 years, on 100s of document productions. It's a lot more complicated than that.

 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top