Official Hillary Clinton 2016 thread (8 Viewers)

[SaintsInDome2006]

Sure Squizz no kidding people who enjoy government by slapfight likely loved Eli.

That was not the tone of the article if you bothered to read it.

And among the points Cummings made which resonated with viewers:

By the end, Cummings had delivered a full-throated defense of Hillary Clintons honor and apologized for a days worth of tasteless insinuations from his Republican colleagues who suggested that Clinton did not care enough to save her friend, Ambassador Chris Stevens.

"I dont know what we want from you," Cummings said, throwing up his hands in frustration. "Do we want to badger you over and over again until you do get so tired so we get the gotcha moment?"

"We are so much better! Were better than using taxpayer dollars to try to destroy a campaign! Thats not what America is all about!"

Sorry i should have read it, which I didn't, I was running around and fired that off. I will take another look.

 

[Bottomfeeder Sports]

Yeah Tim, Norv, it's a value judgement - to me talking about the "politics" of the issue instead of the facts and evidence to me detracts from what was already a bad process. That's especially where I fault Cummings and why I liked Sanchez, she buttressed Hillary's position by asking her to recount details, which by the way Hillary stayed focused as well. She did not run off into accusations and I don't think she needed Eli's hystrionic interference.

So the democrats lead by Cummings are guilty for giving the event too much respect by being there. And the democrats via Cummings are guilty of not giving the event the respect it deserved by focusing on the reality of the situation as opposed to the "what we would have done" imagination of the GOP.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

Yeah Tim, Norv, it's a value judgement - to me talking about the "politics" of the issue instead of the facts and evidence to me detracts from what was already a bad process. That's especially where I fault Cummings and why I liked Sanchez, she buttressed Hillary's position by asking her to recount details, which by the way Hillary stayed focused as well. She did not run off into accusations and I don't think she needed Eli's hystrionic interference.

So the democrats lead by Cummings are guilty for giving the event too much respect by being there. And the democrats via Cummings are guilty of not giving the event the respect it deserved by focusing on the reality of the situation as opposed to the "what we would have done" imagination of the GOP.

I didn't say "the Democrats." I thought Sanchez and others did a good job by drawing in the events of 9/11/12 and referring to the record. I thought Hillary did too.

 

[jon_mx]

I can't believe anyone defends either party. They are both sadly pathetic who peddle BS to pander to their groups which no rationale person would buy into. Our elections are a complete cluster ####. I gave up voting for any of these morons eight years ago and nothing has changed this time around. Is there one person here who really believes we have a bottomless pit of dollars to throw money at every problem or that we can continue to cut everyone's taxes. The last 16 years the political process has become so ####### dysfunctional. Vote for the assclowns. I will not. They all suck donkey balls.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

Sure Squizz no kidding people who enjoy government by slapfight likely loved Eli.

That was not the tone of the article if you bothered to read it.

And among the points Cummings made which resonated with viewers:

By the end, Cummings had delivered a full-throated defense of Hillary Clintons honor and apologized for a days worth of tasteless insinuations from his Republican colleagues who suggested that Clinton did not care enough to save her friend, Ambassador Chris Stevens.

"I dont know what we want from you," Cummings said, throwing up his hands in frustration. "Do we want to badger you over and over again until you do get so tired so we get the gotcha moment?"

"We are so much better! Were better than using taxpayer dollars to try to destroy a campaign! Thats not what America is all about!"

Ok it does make good points. I will add from the transcript he said this:

Yes, we have received some new e-mails from Secretary Clinton, Ambassador Stevens and others. And yes, we have conducted some new interviews. But these documents and interviews do not show any nefarious activity. In fact, it's just the opposite. The new information we obtained confirms and corroborates the core facts we already knew from eight previous investigations. They provide more detail, but they do not change the basic conclusions.

I think this was his best point and IMO the focus on the search for "nefarious" activity has been the problem.

- eta - however the focus on Hillary should not be surprising considering that she is the only one who actually withheld documents from the committee to begin with. If you don't want to be suspected of nefarious activity don't go around hiding or throwing away evidence.

 

[timschochet]

I can't believe anyone defends either party. They are bath sadly pathetic who peddle BS to pander to their groups which no rationale person would buy into. Our elections are a complete cluster ####. I gave up voting for any of these morons eight years ago and nothing has changed this time around. Is there one person here who really believes we have a bottomless pit of dollars to throw money at every problem or that we can continue to cut everyone's taxes. The last 16 years the political process has become so ####### dysfunctional. Vote for the assclowns. I will not. They all suck donkey balls.

Exhibit A. Both sides suck. Both sides are equally bad. This is the only play conservatives have when they're made to look ridiculous, and they use it all the time.

 

[jon_mx]

I can't believe anyone defends either party. They are bath sadly pathetic who peddle BS to pander to their groups which no rationale person would buy into. Our elections are a complete cluster ####. I gave up voting for any of these morons eight years ago and nothing has changed this time around. Is there one person here who really believes we have a bottomless pit of dollars to throw money at every problem or that we can continue to cut everyone's taxes. The last 16 years the political process has become so ####### dysfunctional. Vote for the assclowns. I will not. They all suck donkey balls.

Exhibit A. Both sides suck. Both sides are equally bad. This is the only play conservatives have when they're made to look ridiculous, and they use it all the time.

Tim, i am sorry but they do. You got your head so far up Hillary's ### you can not see your own eyelids. You are Exhibit A-Z of not holding the people you support accountable. You have defended so many blatant lies in this thread.

 

[timschochet]

I can't believe anyone defends either party. They are bath sadly pathetic who peddle BS to pander to their groups which no rationale person would buy into. Our elections are a complete cluster ####. I gave up voting for any of these morons eight years ago and nothing has changed this time around. Is there one person here who really believes we have a bottomless pit of dollars to throw money at every problem or that we can continue to cut everyone's taxes. The last 16 years the political process has become so ####### dysfunctional. Vote for the assclowns. I will not. They all suck donkey balls.

Exhibit A. Both sides suck. Both sides are equally bad. This is the only play conservatives have when they're made to look ridiculous, and they use it all the time.

Tim, i am sorry but they do. You got your head so far up Hillary's ### you can not see your own eyelids. You are Exhibit A-Z of not holding the people you support accountable. You have defended so many blatant lies in this thread.

Yeah you could be right; it sure is dark in here.

 

[The Commish]

Yes...for political gain and It was the goat rodeo of goat rodeos. This committee is a pretty good example of politics run amuck in this country.

Democrats had nothing to do with forming the committee. If Democrats didn't attend the hearing would have gone on as planned.Republicans formed the committee. If Republicans didn't attend the hearing would not have happened.

I'm sure there is a point to this but it doesn't negate anything I said about the dems being willful participants

 

[Bottomfeeder Sports]

Can't wait for the Trump Clinton debates.

This is where I'm at.....time to move on.

I hope the republicans get their #### together and don't pick Trump but doesn't seem like it. Hillary will beat any of them most likely anyways.

it appears that we are destined for 8 more years of kicking the can down the road while the middle class continues to shrink

You keep making this point. Exactly what can are we kicking down the road? What would you have our government do right now, without delay?

you asked this before and my answer hasn't changed and I'm not repeating myself over and over when it's clear you don't care and/or aren't paying attention

Why should anyone care about your positions if you don't care enough to repeat them as many times as necessary to get your point across? Who cares if Timmy or me or whoever you are directly replying to will be receptive or even bother to read them? Who even cares if they are being "fished" when the opportunity to share your opinions with an audience presents itself?

Now in politics of the 21st century "kicking the can down the road" generally means not addressing our long term liabilities which threaten the viability of Medicare and Social Security. Seems to me that one side of the political spectrum took a stab at addressing this a few years back and paid a steep political price. It wasn't enough of course and might not even prove to be a long term success but it was more than "kicking the can down the road". And now we have a choice between those that want to build upon that attempt and those that want to simply replace it with more tax cuts. You asked why would anyone vote for Hillary if there is some fringe candidate that they agree with more? Because if the contest is close we should have learned our lesson from 2000. We can't afford any more of "tax cuts solve all problems" crowd.

You are starting on the false premise that the point can be gotten across BFS. I don't believe that to be the case and I base that belief on the actions/requests. No one gives a #### what I think in reality and I don't think they should (at least any more/less than others here). All I ask is they own that reality and stop asking the same question over and over as if they really do care. That's all. Not that complicated.

I will also disagree with what your definition of kicking the can down the road is. At least it's not what I mean. Your definition is way more specific than mine. At a high level it simply means doing the same partisan while not getting much of anything accomplished then pointing the finger at everyone but themselves for why they couldn't get accomplished everything they promised in the first place. Then, us as voters accepting the promise failures and dismissing them as rhetoric or making excuses like "I can't believe you thought he was serious when he said...." The first part is on the politicians, the second part is on us. The first part exists because of the second. Our standards in this country suck and it's reflected in the policies our representatives produce.

Yep, no one on this board, especially not Timmy was ever convinced to support an idea or change a position because of another poster's arguments. Never!

If a small miracle happened and Sanders were elected you sure are going to be disappointed no matter how successful he really is!

 

[The Commish]

See to me, Saints this just comes off as the same old "gotta find somebody bad on both sides" meme. IMO, and this goes for both you and The Commish, any blame or criticism of any Democrat on that committee is absurd and unwarranted.

of course it does Tim. You have a side to defend in this thing. If you step back and look at what I took issue with it has nothing to do with a party. It's this notion of disgust that this committee has spent all this money by people" the committee. It is at best hypocrisy. You can't complain about spending money while you are spending money. This should be rather obvious. There are plenty of legit gripes to have with this whole fiasco. Financial responsibility by willful contributors isn't one of them.

 

[Bottomfeeder Sports]

- eta - however the focus on Hillary should not be surprising considering that she is the only one who actually withheld documents from the committee to begin with. If you don't want to be suspected of nefarious activity don't go around hiding or throwing away evidence.

Were not the request for documents made of the State Department and not Hillary personally?

 

[jon_mx]

At least we determined for certain that the mods are biased against threads which criticize mods.

 

[Aerial Assault]

Yes...for political gain and It was the goat rodeo of goat rodeos. This committee is a pretty good example of politics run amuck in this country.

Democrats had nothing to do with forming the committee. If Democrats didn't attend the hearing would have gone on as planned.Republicans formed the committee. If Republicans didn't attend the hearing would not have happened.

I'm sure there is a point to this but it doesn't negate anything I said about the dems being willful participants

Remember way back when (yesterday) I indicated that you are really skilled, if skilled is the term, at false equivalence and you denied it?

You certainly can tell the "hearing" went badly for the Republicans when the, uh, best line of attack to be found by the anti-Clinton crowd is "Hey, the Democrats were part of that clownshow too!!!!!" Sure, guys. Such comments show such profound ignorance of the workings of Congress that they are quite honestly beneath you. Here's all you need to know (as if you don't already): if the Democrats were in control of the House of Representatives, this investigation and Thursday's nonsensical political gotcha game (which got nothing) would not have happened.

This was a total debacle for the Republicans and they are 100% responsible for it. There's no way to rehabilitate or spin that.

 

[timschochet]

At least we determined for certain that the mods are biased against threads which criticize mods.

No. Jamesbrownkid is the ultimate example of the internet troll. He's not interested in a back and forth conversation (unless it's to deliver insults)- I sense he may be intellectually incapable of it. He spends 99% of his time here cutting and pasting in order to promote his own views, which is not discussion. The fact that he is "conservative" (by name only- I tend to question whether any firm supporter of Donald Trump is truly a conservative) is immaterial. If he were a liberal supporter of Bernie Sanders or Hillary Clinton and behaved in the same manner he would still be a troll. He offers nothing of worth to this forum. If it were up to me, I would ban him permanently.

 

[Jamesbrownkid]

At least we determined for certain that the mods are biased against threads which criticize mods.

No. Jamesbrownkid is the ultimate example of the internet troll. He's not interested in a back and forth conversation (unless it's to deliver insults)- I sense he may be intellectually incapable of it. He spends 99% of his time here cutting and pasting in order to promote his own views, which is not discussion. The fact that he is "conservative" (by name only- I tend to question whether any firm supporter of Donald Trump is truly a conservative) is immaterial. If he were a liberal supporter of Bernie Sanders or Hillary Clinton and behaved in the same manner he would still be a troll. He offers nothing of worth to this forum. If it were up to me, I would ban him permanently.

At least I never made a post condoning pedophilia and rape, but those are just minor details.

Btw, you still don't understand why true conservatives want Trump even though Trump isn't the greatest conservative there is.

 

[cubd8]

Hillary Clinton @HillaryClinton

Hillary on the GOP debates: "It's reality TV - with a cast of characters who don't care much about actual reality." #IDPJJ

You could make the same argument about Democratic debate

No you can't. Not even remotely.

Bernie Sanders (and Clinton following him with her plans) aren't following reality if they believe any of their plans would actually pass. Trying to outspend the other isn't reality, it's Democratic socialistic fantasy.

 

[The Commish]

Can't wait for the Trump Clinton debates.

This is where I'm at.....time to move on.

I hope the republicans get their #### together and don't pick Trump but doesn't seem like it. Hillary will beat any of them most likely anyways.

it appears that we are destined for 8 more years of kicking the can down the road while the middle class continues to shrink

You keep making this point. Exactly what can are we kicking down the road? What would you have our government do right now, without delay?

you asked this before and my answer hasn't changed and I'm not repeating myself over and over when it's clear you don't care and/or aren't paying attention

Why should anyone care about your positions if you don't care enough to repeat them as many times as necessary to get your point across? Who cares if Timmy or me or whoever you are directly replying to will be receptive or even bother to read them? Who even cares if they are being "fished" when the opportunity to share your opinions with an audience presents itself?

Now in politics of the 21st century "kicking the can down the road" generally means not addressing our long term liabilities which threaten the viability of Medicare and Social Security. Seems to me that one side of the political spectrum took a stab at addressing this a few years back and paid a steep political price. It wasn't enough of course and might not even prove to be a long term success but it was more than "kicking the can down the road". And now we have a choice between those that want to build upon that attempt and those that want to simply replace it with more tax cuts. You asked why would anyone vote for Hillary if there is some fringe candidate that they agree with more? Because if the contest is close we should have learned our lesson from 2000. We can't afford any more of "tax cuts solve all problems" crowd.

You are starting on the false premise that the point can be gotten across BFS. I don't believe that to be the case and I base that belief on the actions/requests. No one gives a #### what I think in reality and I don't think they should (at least any more/less than others here). All I ask is they own that reality and stop asking the same question over and over as if they really do care. That's all. Not that complicated.

I will also disagree with what your definition of kicking the can down the road is. At least it's not what I mean. Your definition is way more specific than mine. At a high level it simply means doing the same partisan while not getting much of anything accomplished then pointing the finger at everyone but themselves for why they couldn't get accomplished everything they promised in the first place. Then, us as voters accepting the promise failures and dismissing them as rhetoric or making excuses like "I can't believe you thought he was serious when he said...." The first part is on the politicians, the second part is on us. The first part exists because of the second. Our standards in this country suck and it's reflected in the policies our representatives produce.

Yep, no one on this board, especially not Timmy was ever convinced to support an idea or change a position because of another poster's arguments. Never!

If a small miracle happened and Sanders were elected you sure are going to be disappointed no matter how successful he really is!

WTF is happening to this board Who said any of what you just said? You guys wanting to talk in these absolutes is pretty amusing. At this point, I hope today is one of those days where you claim you're just messing with people because if not, you're coming across in a spectacularly sad manner.

 

[The Commish]

Yes...for political gain and It was the goat rodeo of goat rodeos. This committee is a pretty good example of politics run amuck in this country.

Democrats had nothing to do with forming the committee. If Democrats didn't attend the hearing would have gone on as planned.Republicans formed the committee. If Republicans didn't attend the hearing would not have happened.

I'm sure there is a point to this but it doesn't negate anything I said about the dems being willful participants

Remember way back when (yesterday) I indicated that you are really skilled, if skilled is the term, at false equivalence and you denied it?

You certainly can tell the "hearing" went badly for the Republicans when the, uh, best line of attack to be found by the anti-Clinton crowd is "Hey, the Democrats were part of that clownshow too!!!!!" Sure, guys. Such comments show such profound ignorance of the workings of Congress that they are quite honestly beneath you. Here's all you need to know (as if you don't already): if the Democrats were in control of the House of Representatives, this investigation and Thursday's nonsensical political gotcha game (which got nothing) would not have happened.

This was a total debacle for the Republicans and they are 100% responsible for it. There's no way to rehabilitate or spin that.

Whoever's doing this should be mocked. My specific comment was mocking the democrats for complaining about how much it was costing to produce this clown show while they were contributing to the very cost. I know you get that. I don't know why you're trying to make more of the comment than that though. We can play the "if" game all you want but I don't see the point. To me, the "if the democrats were in complete control everything would be so much better and we'd never have political games being played" is as disingenuous as those who are boiling this down to the bold above. Both groups seem to be on the "mental midget" end of the spectrum from where I'm sitting.

 

[Bottomfeeder Sports]

Can't wait for the Trump Clinton debates.

This is where I'm at.....time to move on.

I hope the republicans get their #### together and don't pick Trump but doesn't seem like it. Hillary will beat any of them most likely anyways.

it appears that we are destined for 8 more years of kicking the can down the road while the middle class continues to shrink

You keep making this point. Exactly what can are we kicking down the road? What would you have our government do right now, without delay?

you asked this before and my answer hasn't changed and I'm not repeating myself over and over when it's clear you don't care and/or aren't paying attention

Why should anyone care about your positions if you don't care enough to repeat them as many times as necessary to get your point across? Who cares if Timmy or me or whoever you are directly replying to will be receptive or even bother to read them? Who even cares if they are being "fished" when the opportunity to share your opinions with an audience presents itself?

Now in politics of the 21st century "kicking the can down the road" generally means not addressing our long term liabilities which threaten the viability of Medicare and Social Security. Seems to me that one side of the political spectrum took a stab at addressing this a few years back and paid a steep political price. It wasn't enough of course and might not even prove to be a long term success but it was more than "kicking the can down the road". And now we have a choice between those that want to build upon that attempt and those that want to simply replace it with more tax cuts. You asked why would anyone vote for Hillary if there is some fringe candidate that they agree with more? Because if the contest is close we should have learned our lesson from 2000. We can't afford any more of "tax cuts solve all problems" crowd.

You are starting on the false premise that the point can be gotten across BFS. I don't believe that to be the case and I base that belief on the actions/requests. No one gives a #### what I think in reality and I don't think they should (at least any more/less than others here). All I ask is they own that reality and stop asking the same question over and over as if they really do care. That's all. Not that complicated.I will also disagree with what your definition of kicking the can down the road is. At least it's not what I mean. Your definition is way more specific than mine. At a high level it simply means doing the same partisan while not getting much of anything accomplished then pointing the finger at everyone but themselves for why they couldn't get accomplished everything they promised in the first place. Then, us as voters accepting the promise failures and dismissing them as rhetoric or making excuses like "I can't believe you thought he was serious when he said...." The first part is on the politicians, the second part is on us. The first part exists because of the second. Our standards in this country suck and it's reflected in the policies our representatives produce.

Yep, no one on this board, especially not Timmy was ever convinced to support an idea or change a position because of another poster's arguments. Never!

If a small miracle happened and Sanders were elected you sure are going to be disappointed no matter how successful he really is!

WTF is happening to this board Who said any of what you just said? You guys wanting to talk in these absolutes is pretty amusing. At this point, I hope today is one of those days where you claim you're just messing with people because if not, you're coming across in a spectacularly sad manner.

You said it was a false premise that your positions could influence anyone's opinion. Not only that you said no one should even care about what you think.

 

[Mr.Pack]

Yeah Tim, Norv, it's a value judgement - to me talking about the "politics" of the issue instead of the facts and evidence to me detracts from what was already a bad process. That's especially where I fault Cummings and why I liked Sanchez, she buttressed Hillary's position by asking her to recount details, which by the way Hillary stayed focused as well. She did not run off into accusations and I don't think she needed Eli's hystrionic interference.

I disagree. The real problem is the political witch hunt, not the exposing it.

And the political witch hunt by the Liberals against Scott Walker in WI is ok?

You guys sure don't hate the liberal witch hunts.

ETA: The so called politcal with hunt against Hillary is the only way to get the publics attention. If the media wouldn't bury every story when a lib does something wrong, no witch hunt would be needed. I think they suck too, but somehow the people need to find things out.

 

[timschochet]

Yeah Tim, Norv, it's a value judgement - to me talking about the "politics" of the issue instead of the facts and evidence to me detracts from what was already a bad process. That's especially where I fault Cummings and why I liked Sanchez, she buttressed Hillary's position by asking her to recount details, which by the way Hillary stayed focused as well. She did not run off into accusations and I don't think she needed Eli's hystrionic interference.

I disagree. The real problem is the political witch hunt, not the exposing it.

And the political witch hunt by the Liberals against Scott Walker in WI is ok?

You guys sure don't hate the liberal witch hunts.

ETA: The so called politcal with hunt against Hillary is the only way to get the publics attention. If the media wouldn't bury every story when a lib does something wrong, no witch hunt would be needed. I think they suck too, but somehow the people need to find things out.

Since when has the media EVER buried a story regarding Hillary being accused of doing something wrong?

 

[BowieMercs]

Hillary is a mortal lock. I heard Joe Biden back pedal on shots he fired across Hillary's bow. The democratic machine has spoken. 8 more years of gridlock and executive orders and we wont need those pesky judicial & legislative branches anymore

 

[The Commish]

You said it was a false premise that your positions could influence anyone's opinion. Not only that you said no one should even care about what you think.

My position isn't changing Tim's mind. My comments through this whole exchange were specific to the interaction with Tim. I thought that was clear, but rereading I can see how it might not have been. I should have said TIm specifically and not "no one". To the last part, that's true. People should look at the information and be able to come to their own conclusions. A random internet person (me) should be the last person they're listening to and I'm not egotistical enough to think otherwise. There may be some out there that value my opinion, maybe not, but I am under no delusions that I'm going to change anyone's mind with my opinion, especially Tim's.

 

[timschochet]

You said it was a false premise that your positions could influence anyone's opinion. Not only that you said no one should even care about what you think.

My position isn't changing Tim's mind. My comments through this whole exchange were specific to the interaction with Tim. I thought that was clear, but rereading I can see how it might not have been. I should have said TIm specifically and not "no one". To the last part, that's true. People should look at the information and be able to come to their own conclusions. A random internet person (me) should be the last person they're listening to and I'm not egotistical enough to think otherwise. There may be some out there that value my opinion, maybe not, but I am under no delusions that I'm going to change anyone's mind with my opinion, especially Tim's.

Several people in this forum have made compelling arguments over the years that has changed my mind, significantly, on a variety of issues. In this case I'm still somewhat unclear as to how my mind should be changed. Perhaps if you allowed us to discuss it, I might be able to change YOUR mind; who knows?

 

[Leeroy Jenkins]

For all the naysayers, I'm somebody who dislikes) Hillary in general. I was almost hoping the GOP would put forth somebody reasonable like Kasich. Without that I was prepared to hold my nose and vote for Clinton should she be the nominee and was going to sit out the PA primary.

Based on the debate and the hearings, I'm more inclined to actually vote for Clinton without holding my nose and also voting for her in the primary over Bernie. She is the most qualified person for the job out of the sorry pool of candidates out there. I like Bernie, but he's too extreme to be president as are 99% of the people on the other side right now.

 

[The Commish]

You said it was a false premise that your positions could influence anyone's opinion. Not only that you said no one should even care about what you think.

My position isn't changing Tim's mind. My comments through this whole exchange were specific to the interaction with Tim. I thought that was clear, but rereading I can see how it might not have been. I should have said TIm specifically and not "no one". To the last part, that's true. People should look at the information and be able to come to their own conclusions. A random internet person (me) should be the last person they're listening to and I'm not egotistical enough to think otherwise. There may be some out there that value my opinion, maybe not, but I am under no delusions that I'm going to change anyone's mind with my opinion, especially Tim's.

Several people in this forum have made compelling arguments over the years that has changed my mind, significantly, on a variety of issues. In this case I'm still somewhat unclear as to how my mind should be changed. Perhaps if you allowed us to discuss it, I might be able to change YOUR mind; who knows?

It's tough to discuss anything when we can't get out of the gate and I answer the same question over and over. Sends a message to me that you really don't care, which is fine. I don't expect you to, but forgive me if I take your actions over your words.

 

[timschochet]

You said it was a false premise that your positions could influence anyone's opinion. Not only that you said no one should even care about what you think.

My position isn't changing Tim's mind. My comments through this whole exchange were specific to the interaction with Tim. I thought that was clear, but rereading I can see how it might not have been. I should have said TIm specifically and not "no one". To the last part, that's true. People should look at the information and be able to come to their own conclusions. A random internet person (me) should be the last person they're listening to and I'm not egotistical enough to think otherwise. There may be some out there that value my opinion, maybe not, but I am under no delusions that I'm going to change anyone's mind with my opinion, especially Tim's.

Several people in this forum have made compelling arguments over the years that has changed my mind, significantly, on a variety of issues. In this case I'm still somewhat unclear as to how my mind should be changed. Perhaps if you allowed us to discuss it, I might be able to change YOUR mind; who knows?

It's tough to discuss anything when we can't get out of the gate and I answer the same question over and over. Sends a message to me that you really don't care, which is fine. I don't expect you to, but forgive me if I take your actions over your words.

OK I guess I'm going to give up. I've tried. I still have no idea what your specific complaint is. Again if I missed it I apologize.

 

[timschochet]

Hillary in Iowa comes out to "Eye of the Tiger"- fully approved beforehand by Survivor. Then Bill and Katy Perry showed up.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

- eta - however the focus on Hillary should not be surprising considering that she is the only one who actually withheld documents from the committee to begin with. If you don't want to be suspected of nefarious activity don't go around hiding or throwing away evidence.

Were not the request for documents made of the State Department and not Hillary personally?

Yes and no. Yes the requests were made to State but then Congress did not know Hillary had a personal email from which she did all of her work. And State was complicit but it was Hillary holding the documents while she personally knew she was appearing without State or Congress having all of her documentation.

 

[Todd Andrews]

Yeah Tim, Norv, it's a value judgement - to me talking about the "politics" of the issue instead of the facts and evidence to me detracts from what was already a bad process. That's especially where I fault Cummings and why I liked Sanchez, she buttressed Hillary's position by asking her to recount details, which by the way Hillary stayed focused as well. She did not run off into accusations and I don't think she needed Eli's hystrionic interference.

Yeah but youre a Secret Squirell KooK, SaintsDowdy.

Of course, you dont want someone pointing out what a giant GOP KooK diarrea fest you were wallowing in. You want someone who will go along with you in pretending its a beautiful bubblebath.

 

[squistion]

Yeah Tim, Norv, it's a value judgement - to me talking about the "politics" of the issue instead of the facts and evidence to me detracts from what was already a bad process. That's especially where I fault Cummings and why I liked Sanchez, she buttressed Hillary's position by asking her to recount details, which by the way Hillary stayed focused as well. She did not run off into accusations and I don't think she needed Eli's hystrionic interference.

Yeah but youre a Secret Squirell KooK, SaintsDowdy.

Of course, you dont want someone pointing out what a giant GOP KooK diarrea fest you were wallowing in. You want someone who will go along with you in pretending its a beautiful bubblebath.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

Yeah Tim, Norv, it's a value judgement - to me talking about the "politics" of the issue instead of the facts and evidence to me detracts from what was already a bad process. That's especially where I fault Cummings and why I liked Sanchez, she buttressed Hillary's position by asking her to recount details, which by the way Hillary stayed focused as well. She did not run off into accusations and I don't think she needed Eli's hystrionic interference.

Yeah but youre a Secret Squirell KooK, SaintsDowdy.

Of course, you dont want someone pointing out what a giant GOP KooK diarrea fest you were wallowing in. You want someone who will go along with you in pretending its a beautiful bubblebath.

Todd, you make an insult sound so.... soothing. Mmmm bubblebath.

 

[MaxThreshold]

Yeah Tim, Norv, it's a value judgement - to me talking about the "politics" of the issue instead of the facts and evidence to me detracts from what was already a bad process. That's especially where I fault Cummings and why I liked Sanchez, she buttressed Hillary's position by asking her to recount details, which by the way Hillary stayed focused as well. She did not run off into accusations and I don't think she needed Eli's hystrionic interference.

Yeah but youre a Secret Squirell KooK, SaintsDowdy.

Of course, you dont want someone pointing out what a giant GOP KooK diarrea fest you were wallowing in. You want someone who will go along with you in pretending its a beautiful bubblebath.

Todd, you make an insult sound so.... soothing. Mmmm bubblebath.

Did you know that Todd is an Independent? No, seriously.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

Yeah Tim, Norv, it's a value judgement - to me talking about the "politics" of the issue instead of the facts and evidence to me detracts from what was already a bad process. That's especially where I fault Cummings and why I liked Sanchez, she buttressed Hillary's position by asking her to recount details, which by the way Hillary stayed focused as well. She did not run off into accusations and I don't think she needed Eli's hystrionic interference.

Yeah but youre a Secret Squirell KooK, SaintsDowdy.

Of course, you dont want someone pointing out what a giant GOP KooK diarrea fest you were wallowing in. You want someone who will go along with you in pretending its a beautiful bubblebath.

Todd, you make an insult sound so.... soothing. Mmmm bubblebath.

Did you know that Todd is an Independent? No, seriously.

Commish also ran into flack from Tim, the self-appointed Mr. Centrist, for suggesting that some Democrats could have been viewed as less than heroic in that performance.

It's become an important talking point as talking point. I'm trying to understand the distinction between a McCarthy (an actual, you know, politician) coming out and saying "politics" with regard to the Hillary hearing and Ben Rhodes (the NSA) saying the main goal for Susan Rice was to "reinforce the president" and protect against claims of "a broader failure of policy." However one distinction is that the former does politics for a living and the latter is supposed to be 100% not involved in politics.

An accusation of politics over facts has been turned into an accusation of politics over facts.

Meanwhile, as for the facts? Dust in the wind. Todd at least supports Jim Webb who has criticized, guess what, the "broader failure of policy" in Libya, which is where the conversation has belonged all along, since the moment Ben Rhodes wrote that memo.

 

[Mr.Pack]

Yeah Tim, Norv, it's a value judgement - to me talking about the "politics" of the issue instead of the facts and evidence to me detracts from what was already a bad process. That's especially where I fault Cummings and why I liked Sanchez, she buttressed Hillary's position by asking her to recount details, which by the way Hillary stayed focused as well. She did not run off into accusations and I don't think she needed Eli's hystrionic interference.

Yeah but youre a Secret Squirell KooK, SaintsDowdy.

Of course, you dont want someone pointing out what a giant GOP KooK diarrea fest you were wallowing in. You want someone who will go along with you in pretending its a beautiful bubblebath.

Todd, you make an insult sound so.... soothing. Mmmm bubblebath.

Did you know that Todd is an Independent? No, seriously.

And around 15yrs old would be my guess, judging from the constant name calling, although that maybe be a rip on 15yr olds.

 

[The Commish]

Yeah Tim, Norv, it's a value judgement - to me talking about the "politics" of the issue instead of the facts and evidence to me detracts from what was already a bad process. That's especially where I fault Cummings and why I liked Sanchez, she buttressed Hillary's position by asking her to recount details, which by the way Hillary stayed focused as well. She did not run off into accusations and I don't think she needed Eli's hystrionic interference.

Yeah but youre a Secret Squirell KooK, SaintsDowdy.

Of course, you dont want someone pointing out what a giant GOP KooK diarrea fest you were wallowing in. You want someone who will go along with you in pretending its a beautiful bubblebath.

Todd, you make an insult sound so.... soothing. Mmmm bubblebath.

Did you know that Todd is an Independent? No, seriously.

Commish also ran into flack from Tim, the self-appointed Mr. Centrist, for suggesting that some Democrats could have been viewed as less than heroic in that performance.

It's become an important talking point as talking point. I'm trying to understand the distinction between a McCarthy (an actual, you know, politician) coming out and saying "politics" with regard to the Hillary hearing and Ben Rhodes (the NSA) saying the main goal for Susan Rice was to "reinforce the president" and protect against claims of "a broader failure of policy." However one distinction is that the former does politics for a living and the latter is supposed to be 100% not involved in politics.

An accusation of politics over facts has been turned into an accusation of politics over facts.

Meanwhile, as for the facts? Dust in the wind. Todd at least supports Jim Webb who has criticized, guess what, the "broader failure of policy" in Libya, which is where the conversation has belonged all along, since the moment Ben Rhodes wrote that memo.

This happens from both sides best I can tell and it's certainly not just Tim. There's this false narrative (or at minimum manufactured narrative often assigned) that I think both sides are "exactly the same". That will be fixated on as if there isn't enough crazy/incompetent to go around that it's important in some way. So much so, the greater (and more general) point is often ignored. The Benghazi committee thing is the perfect example. My assertion was (and still is) that it's absurd for the democrats participating on the committee complain about the amount of money the committee has wasted. Somehow it's not ok for me to point out the hypocrisy in that position. It almost feels like they believe by pointing it out, it somehow minimizes the crazy by "the other side". It doesn't. There's plenty to go around. We aren't drawing from a finite amount of crazy. The whole committee is a farce and I make no apologies for any of them. It's a waste of our taxpayer money and those on the committee should be ashamed. Period. No other qualifiers necessary. That position is then turned into "well you're a dummy for creating a false equivalency. You're a simpleton for thinking both groups are exactly the same". I sorta feel bad for that strawman....it's been beaten within an inch of it's life already and I see no signs of it letting up.

 

[jon_mx]

At least Tim has learned to use paragraphs.

 

[McGarnicle]

Christ, I wish Biden would run. Just watching this 60 Minutes interview now. He says it's too late to mount a successful campaign but I think he underestimates how disliked Hillary is. You've got to respect his reasons, but it's really a shame if we end up with Trump vs. Hillary.

 

[Bottomfeeder Sports]

You said it was a false premise that your positions could influence anyone's opinion. Not only that you said no one should even care about what you think.

My position isn't changing Tim's mind. My comments through this whole exchange were specific to the interaction with Tim. I thought that was clear, but rereading I can see how it might not have been. I should have said TIm specifically and not "no one". To the last part, that's true. People should look at the information and be able to come to their own conclusions. A random internet person (me) should be the last person they're listening to and I'm not egotistical enough to think otherwise. There may be some out there that value my opinion, maybe not, but I am under no delusions that I'm going to change anyone's mind with my opinion, especially Tim's.

But my original point was that the audience for your perspective is greater than just Tim. Maybe there is no hope that you'll find an ally in Tim, but maybe you'll touch a nerve in another poster or even a lurker that causes them to give pause and think about your perspective. I agree that no one should allow a random message board post be the last word but only a fool completely ignores the intelligence of the posters on this forum and their ability to introduce new ideas that shape, refine if not change one's opinions. And I agree and understand that sometimes it is just no longer feels worth the trouble (the heritage foundation might have a point with ACA enrollment if 100% or close to it of those that gained Medicaid coverage was previously uninsured and if there was even one survey that showed the significant drop in ESI that they kludge together from their fruit basket, but neither of those statements are actually true).

 

[The Commish]

You said it was a false premise that your positions could influence anyone's opinion. Not only that you said no one should even care about what you think.

My position isn't changing Tim's mind. My comments through this whole exchange were specific to the interaction with Tim. I thought that was clear, but rereading I can see how it might not have been. I should have said TIm specifically and not "no one". To the last part, that's true. People should look at the information and be able to come to their own conclusions. A random internet person (me) should be the last person they're listening to and I'm not egotistical enough to think otherwise. There may be some out there that value my opinion, maybe not, but I am under no delusions that I'm going to change anyone's mind with my opinion, especially Tim's.

But my original point was that the audience for your perspective is greater than just Tim. Maybe there is no hope that you'll find an ally in Tim, but maybe you'll touch a nerve in another poster or even a lurker that causes them to give pause and think about your perspective. I agree that no one should allow a random message board post be the last word but only a fool completely ignores the intelligence of the posters on this forum and their ability to introduce new ideas that shape, refine if not change one's opinions. And I agree and understand that sometimes it is just no longer feels worth the trouble (the heritage foundation might have a point with ACA enrollment if 100% or close to it of those that gained Medicaid coverage was previously uninsured and if there was even one survey that showed the significant drop in ESI that they kludge together from their fruit basket, but neither of those statements are actually true).

I don't disagree and honestly should some random lurker or other poster I haven't been over this stuff a million times ask me my opinion, I'd oblige. I just don't see the point in doing it with Tim any longer. My comments are out of frustration with an individual. If I step back and look at it from where you are, I get it. I'm just not interested in playing in Tim's rabbit holes anymore. It's grown stale.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

Christ, I wish Biden would run. Just watching this 60 Minutes interview now. He says it's too late to mount a successful campaign but I think he underestimates how disliked Hillary is. You've got to respect his reasons, but it's really a shame if we end up with Trump vs. Hillary.

Hillary is a mortal lock. I heard Joe Biden back pedal on shots he fired across Hillary's bow. The democratic machine has spoken. 8 more years of gridlock and executive orders and we wont need those pesky judicial & legislative branches anymore

I could have sworn I heard something on NPR this am too but I was too groggy to catch it, something about how his desire and the president's presumably had been to preserve their legacy.

That must have been Joe from 60M they were playing:

"I do want to influence the Democratic Party," he said. "I want to make no bones about that. I don't want the party walking away from what Barack and I did."

That's why I thought he might run.

Asked by CBS News correspondent Norah O'Donnell whether he chose not to run because "you think you couldn't win" or "didn't want to run," Biden answered:

"Couldn't win. I'll be very blunt. If I thought we could've put together the campaign that our supporters deserve and our contributors deserved, I would have gone ahead and done it."

Then he says:

On Hillary Clinton: "I've debated Hillary 13 times in national presidential debates. I know Hillary. I know her debating skills. I know mine. I have never had any doubt about her intellect or her capacity to debate. And I thought she comported herself really well [in the Democratic presidential debate]. ... I've said from the beginning, look, I like Hillary. Hillary and I get along together. The only reason to run is because I still think I could do a better job than anybody else could do. That's the reason to run. I wouldn't run against Hillary."

http://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2016-election/biden-i-would-have-run-i-couldnt-win-n451211

In one breath he says he felt the need to preserve Obama's legacy, in the next he says Hillary can do that fine. But if he felt that Hillary would preserve Obama's legacy, why seek to run in the first place presuming he could have won?

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

Hillary's reaction when she realizes that Sanders just ceded the nomination to her by actually getting behind her on her weakest issue is at at 0:16.

Poll numbers are going up, I'm sure.

 

[timschochet]

You said it was a false premise that your positions could influence anyone's opinion. Not only that you said no one should even care about what you think.

My position isn't changing Tim's mind. My comments through this whole exchange were specific to the interaction with Tim. I thought that was clear, but rereading I can see how it might not have been. I should have said TIm specifically and not "no one". To the last part, that's true. People should look at the information and be able to come to their own conclusions. A random internet person (me) should be the last person they're listening to and I'm not egotistical enough to think otherwise. There may be some out there that value my opinion, maybe not, but I am under no delusions that I'm going to change anyone's mind with my opinion, especially Tim's.

But my original point was that the audience for your perspective is greater than just Tim. Maybe there is no hope that you'll find an ally in Tim, but maybe you'll touch a nerve in another poster or even a lurker that causes them to give pause and think about your perspective. I agree that no one should allow a random message board post be the last word but only a fool completely ignores the intelligence of the posters on this forum and their ability to introduce new ideas that shape, refine if not change one's opinions. And I agree and understand that sometimes it is just no longer feels worth the trouble (the heritage foundation might have a point with ACA enrollment if 100% or close to it of those that gained Medicaid coverage was previously uninsured and if there was even one survey that showed the significant drop in ESI that they kludge together from their fruit basket, but neither of those statements are actually true).

I don't disagree and honestly should some random lurker or other poster I haven't been over this stuff a million times ask me my opinion, I'd oblige. I just don't see the point in doing it with Tim any longer. My comments are out of frustration with an individual. If I step back and look at it from where you are, I get it. I'm just not interested in playing in Tim's rabbit holes anymore. It's grown stale.

My rabbit holes...I'm not guy you've framed in your mind. I don't know who that guy is, frankly, but I'm not him. I'm opinionated for sure, and I get a lot of stuff wrong and sometimes I'm clueless. Sometimes I write stuff as an attempt at humor which falls flat so people take me too seriously. And sometimes I get so annoyed at certain people (you've never been one of them) around here that I'm rude and I write foolish stuff which I wish I could take back.

But there's no deliberate manipulation, no attempt to "troll" people, no rabbit holes that I've intentionally created. And with very very few exceptions (that I could count on the fingers of one hand) no ill will towards anyone here.

 

[Bottomfeeder Sports]

- eta - however the focus on Hillary should not be surprising considering that she is the only one who actually withheld documents from the committee to begin with. If you don't want to be suspected of nefarious activity don't go around hiding or throwing away evidence.

Were not the request for documents made of the State Department and not Hillary personally?

Yes and no. Yes the requests were made to State but then Congress did not know Hillary had a personal email from which she did all of her work. And State was complicit but it was Hillary holding the documents while she personally knew she was appearing without State or Congress having all of her documentation.

So Hillary did not withhold a single document that was requested of her. But you are correct it is no surprise since all of these Benghazi hearing have mostly investigated figments of the committee GOP'ers imagination.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

- eta - however the focus on Hillary should not be surprising considering that she is the only one who actually withheld documents from the committee to begin with. If you don't want to be suspected of nefarious activity don't go around hiding or throwing away evidence.

Were not the request for documents made of the State Department and not Hillary personally?

Yes and no. Yes the requests were made to State but then Congress did not know Hillary had a personal email from which she did all of her work. And State was complicit but it was Hillary holding the documents while she personally knew she was appearing without State or Congress having all of her documentation.

So Hillary did not withhold a single document that was requested of her. But you are correct it is no surprise since all of these Benghazi hearing have mostly investigated figments of the committee GOP'ers imagination.

No, she most definitely did. She appeared before a committee knowing full well that the committee had asked documents from State but that State did not have all her documents and therefore Congress did not have all her documents when conducting its investigation. She concealed the existence of her email server and thus her documents could not be requested of her personally. Hiding information and then casting blaming on others for not asking for what they could not have known existed is the height of cynical deception.

 

[Bottomfeeder Sports]

- eta - however the focus on Hillary should not be surprising considering that she is the only one who actually withheld documents from the committee to begin with. If you don't want to be suspected of nefarious activity don't go around hiding or throwing away evidence.

Were not the request for documents made of the State Department and not Hillary personally?

Yes and no. Yes the requests were made to State but then Congress did not know Hillary had a personal email from which she did all of her work. And State was complicit but it was Hillary holding the documents while she personally knew she was appearing without State or Congress having all of her documentation.

So Hillary did not withhold a single document that was requested of her. But you are correct it is no surprise since all of these Benghazi hearing have mostly investigated figments of the committee GOP'ers imagination.

No, she most definitely did. She appeared before a committee knowing full well that the committee had asked documents from State but that State did not have all her documents and therefore Congress did not have all her documents when conducting its investigation. She concealed the existence of her email server and thus her documents could not be requested of her personally. Hiding information and then casting blaming others for not asking for what they could not have known existed is the height of cynical deception.

Her usage of a personal account may have caused the State Department to not know how to retrieve her forwarded e-mails, but the testimony under oath from Thursday was that almost all of these e-mails were already held by the State Department. Until asked, why should have "known full well" that the State Department was having issues? And until she is asked, how can she withhold anything?

And assuming her repeated testimony on this matter was more or less factual she also complied with the "archival requirement" of having the e-mails in the possession of the government. Her usage of a private account slowed down the process and go ahead and believe that was by design, but those e-mails generated how many actual questions about what we could do to prevent the next Benghazi? Zero! Those e-mails and her testimony on Thursday added what to our knowledge? Nothing!

 

[The Commish]

You said it was a false premise that your positions could influence anyone's opinion. Not only that you said no one should even care about what you think.

My position isn't changing Tim's mind. My comments through this whole exchange were specific to the interaction with Tim. I thought that was clear, but rereading I can see how it might not have been. I should have said TIm specifically and not "no one". To the last part, that's true. People should look at the information and be able to come to their own conclusions. A random internet person (me) should be the last person they're listening to and I'm not egotistical enough to think otherwise. There may be some out there that value my opinion, maybe not, but I am under no delusions that I'm going to change anyone's mind with my opinion, especially Tim's.

But my original point was that the audience for your perspective is greater than just Tim. Maybe there is no hope that you'll find an ally in Tim, but maybe you'll touch a nerve in another poster or even a lurker that causes them to give pause and think about your perspective. I agree that no one should allow a random message board post be the last word but only a fool completely ignores the intelligence of the posters on this forum and their ability to introduce new ideas that shape, refine if not change one's opinions. And I agree and understand that sometimes it is just no longer feels worth the trouble (the heritage foundation might have a point with ACA enrollment if 100% or close to it of those that gained Medicaid coverage was previously uninsured and if there was even one survey that showed the significant drop in ESI that they kludge together from their fruit basket, but neither of those statements are actually true).

I don't disagree and honestly should some random lurker or other poster I haven't been over this stuff a million times ask me my opinion, I'd oblige. I just don't see the point in doing it with Tim any longer. My comments are out of frustration with an individual. If I step back and look at it from where you are, I get it. I'm just not interested in playing in Tim's rabbit holes anymore. It's grown stale.

My rabbit holes...I'm not guy you've framed in your mind. I don't know who that guy is, frankly, but I'm not him. I'm opinionated for sure, and I get a lot of stuff wrong and sometimes I'm clueless. Sometimes I write stuff as an attempt at humor which falls flat so people take me too seriously. And sometimes I get so annoyed at certain people (you've never been one of them) around here that I'm rude and I write foolish stuff which I wish I could take back.

But there's no deliberate manipulation, no attempt to "troll" people, no rabbit holes that I've intentionally created. And with very very few exceptions (that I could count on the fingers of one hand) no ill will towards anyone here.

I didn't say you deliberately create them. I'm not sure if you do or not. If you say you don't I take your word for it, but we end up there frequently.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

- eta - however the focus on Hillary should not be surprising considering that she is the only one who actually withheld documents from the committee to begin with. If you don't want to be suspected of nefarious activity don't go around hiding or throwing away evidence.

Were not the request for documents made of the State Department and not Hillary personally?

Yes and no. Yes the requests were made to State but then Congress did not know Hillary had a personal email from which she did all of her work. And State was complicit but it was Hillary holding the documents while she personally knew she was appearing without State or Congress having all of her documentation.

So Hillary did not withhold a single document that was requested of her. But you are correct it is no surprise since all of these Benghazi hearing have mostly investigated figments of the committee GOP'ers imagination.

No, she most definitely did. She appeared before a committee knowing full well that the committee had asked documents from State but that State did not have all her documents and therefore Congress did not have all her documents when conducting its investigation. She concealed the existence of her email server and thus her documents could not be requested of her personally. Hiding information and then casting blaming others for not asking for what they could not have known existed is the height of cynical deception.

Her usage of a personal account may have caused the State Department to not know how to retrieve her forwarded e-mails, but the testimony under oath from Thursday was that almost all of these e-mails were already held by the State Department. Until asked, why should have "known full well" that the State Department was having issues? And until she is asked, how can she withhold anything?

And assuming her repeated testimony on this matter was more or less factual she also complied with the "archival requirement" of having the e-mails in the possession of the government. Her usage of a private account slowed down the process and go ahead and believe that was by design, but those e-mails generated how many actual questions about what we could do to prevent the next Benghazi? Zero! Those e-mails and her testimony on Thursday added what to our knowledge? Nothing!

Almost all. Not all.

Congress - just like any party to a negotiation or in a lawsuit or even a city council hearing on bus fares - has a right to have all the documentation it requests. You can't say 'oh I had it on a separate server, whoops, sorry.'

That gets anyone sanctioned in court on even minor matters, do it to the FBI or the police when people have lost their lives it gets you in jail, do it to a legislative body and both can happen. The documents that were discussed at the hearing were not previously known, pretty much defeats the purpose of your argument as a practical matter as well

 

[Bottomfeeder Sports]

- eta - however the focus on Hillary should not be surprising considering that she is the only one who actually withheld documents from the committee to begin with. If you don't want to be suspected of nefarious activity don't go around hiding or throwing away evidence.

Were not the request for documents made of the State Department and not Hillary personally?

Yes and no. Yes the requests were made to State but then Congress did not know Hillary had a personal email from which she did all of her work. And State was complicit but it was Hillary holding the documents while she personally knew she was appearing without State or Congress having all of her documentation.

So Hillary did not withhold a single document that was requested of her. But you are correct it is no surprise since all of these Benghazi hearing have mostly investigated figments of the committee GOP'ers imagination.

No, she most definitely did. She appeared before a committee knowing full well that the committee had asked documents from State but that State did not have all her documents and therefore Congress did not have all her documents when conducting its investigation. She concealed the existence of her email server and thus her documents could not be requested of her personally. Hiding information and then casting blaming others for not asking for what they could not have known existed is the height of cynical deception.

Her usage of a personal account may have caused the State Department to not know how to retrieve her forwarded e-mails, but the testimony under oath from Thursday was that almost all of these e-mails were already held by the State Department. Until asked, why should have "known full well" that the State Department was having issues? And until she is asked, how can she withhold anything?

And assuming her repeated testimony on this matter was more or less factual she also complied with the "archival requirement" of having the e-mails in the possession of the government. Her usage of a private account slowed down the process and go ahead and believe that was by design, but those e-mails generated how many actual questions about what we could do to prevent the next Benghazi? Zero! Those e-mails and her testimony on Thursday added what to our knowledge? Nothing!

Almost all. Not all.

Congress - just like any party to a negotiation or in a lawsuit or even a city council hearing on bus fares - has a right to have all the documentation it requests. You can't say 'oh I had it on a separate server, whoops, sorry.'

That gets anyone sanctioned in court on even minor matters, do it to the FBI or the police when people have lost their lives it gets you in jail, do it to a legislative body and both can happen. The documents that were discussed at the hearing were not previously known, pretty much defeats the purpose of your argument as a practical matter as well

Hillary withheld zero documents requested of her. Congress had all of the documents that could be provided prior to Thursday's hearing. Other than a hope and a prayer that they could smear Hillary those documents contained nothing new of any substance to talk about. And thus the absolutely disgraceful showing we had. But keep believing that it was necessary.