Official Hillary Clinton 2016 thread (5 Viewers)

[SaintsInDome2006]

I don't want to get into a terminology argument with you. I'll probably lose. 

Heres the point- per that letter, the FBI won't confirm or deny that any law was broken. The Washington Post doesn't know if any law was broken and all their sources will confirm is that the FBI is trying to figure it out. Hillary says no law was broken. When the FBI says a law was broken, when they recommend charges against somebody for breaking that law, then I'll believe it. Until then I won't? Isn't that a reasonable position? 

Ok I'm not going to drive you on it. I'd just like to inform: you know about the letter, you know about the language in it, and you know Pagliano was granted immunity. I will leave it there and we will see what happens next.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

 

Role of tech who set up Clinton's server unknown to bosses at State


Soon after Hillary Clinton's arrival at the State Department in 2009, officials in the information technology office were baffled when told that a young technician would join them as a political appointee, newly disclosed emails show.

The technician, Bryan Pagliano, was running the off-grid email server that Clinton had him set up in her New York home for her work as secretary of state. But even as years passed, Pagliano's supervisors never learned of his most sensitive task, according to the department and one of his former colleagues.

Pagliano's immediate supervisors did not know the private server even existed until it was revealed in news reports last year, the colleague said, requesting anonymity because of a department ban on unauthorized interviews.

...Kennedy shared Pagliano's résumé in 2009 with Susan Swart, then the head of the department's Bureau of Information Resource Management and chief adviser to the secretary on the department's information technology systems, and her deputy, Charlie Wisecarver.

"How did the conversation go and have you reached an arrangement?" he asked them, referring to Pagliano, in another email, according to the letter the committee shared with Reuters.

Wisecarver and Swart, who had worked in the department for decades, were soon swapping emails expressing confusion and surprise that a political appointee, a so-called Schedule C employee who is more commonly hired to work in the secretary of state's offices, should be joining the IT department's ranks.

Schedule C employees, who help presidential appointees and agency heads make policy, can only report to people appointed by the U.S. president or other senior executive officials. But no one like that worked in the IT office, so Kennedy ended up being Pagliano's designated supervisor.

The department told Reuters that Pagliano and Kennedy had little contact, and that Kennedy was unaware of the server or his subordinate's role in running it. Nor did Wisecarver, Pagliano's day-to-day boss, or Swart know, according to the former colleague, who said the IT office should have been informed.

People who worked with Pagliano did not respond to messages. Pagliano's lawyer declined to comment. ...

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-election-clinton-idUSKCN0WR00X

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

Pagliano was hired at GS15-4, which I believe is the highest civilian pay grade. He entered government service at $132K. he previously received $5,000.

http://www.scribd.com/doc/301943207/Bryan-Pagliano-s-personnel-file

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Schedule_%28US_civil_service_pay_scale%29

The man Clinton has said maintained and monitored her server was Bryan Pagliano, who had worked as the technology chief for her political action committee and her presidential campaign. It is not clear whether he had any help. Pagliano had also provided computer services to the Clinton family. In 2008, he received more than $5,000 for that work, according to financial disclosure statements he filed with the government.

In May 2009, with Kennedy’s help, Pagliano landed a job as a political employee in the State Department’s IT division, documents and interviews show. It was an unusual arrangement.

At the same time, Pagliano apparently agreed to maintain the basement server. Officials in the IT division have told investigators they could not recall previously hiring a political appointee. Three of Pagliano’s supervisors also told investigators they had no idea that Clinton used the basement server or that Pagliano was moonlighting on it.

- WaPo

Who makes the call on that sort of hiring decision?

 

[Zegras11]

Pagliano was hired at GS15-4, which I believe is the highest civilian pay grade. He entered government service at $132K. he previously received $5,000.

http://www.scribd.com/doc/301943207/Bryan-Pagliano-s-personnel-file

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Schedule_%28US_civil_service_pay_scale%29

- WaPo

Who makes the call on that sort of hiring decision?

The next POTUS

 

[BigSteelThrill]

20x as many people voted in Cook County Illinois than voted in the Hawaii and Alaska caucuses combined.  Bernie's broken serve once, in Michigan.  But Hillary regained serve by pummeling him in Ohio.  

Bernie ran a great campaign, and he's a great dude, but he isn't ready to be President.  And the math doesn't lie.

The difference was 37,000 votes out of 455,000 in Cook County.

And the opinions of hundreds of thousands have swayed TO Bernie and away from Hillary over the past couple months. 

 

[MaxThreshold]

This I think i a good article. I'm going to bookmark it actually.

A note about the author from the article, Chetan Hebbale:

This is indeed long, it's comprehensive and intelligent.

As the man says:

And I love this:

- That's all I ever ask. Don't believe your politician, your radio show or podcast host, or any other pundit. Try to read the facts and handle your own decisions as one small power base in this the USA.

Anyway when someone asked for a good summary a while back it occurred to me just how there have been summaries of issues and events but never of the whole investigation. I think this might serve as one possible resource:

Fantastic article.   Thanks, SID!

Can't wait to see the spin from the usual suspects.

 

[MaxThreshold]

Remember when we were laughed at when we said there was 100+ FBI agents working the email investigation?  147 so far and counting.

 

[Dr Oadi]

Remember when we were laughed at when we said there was 100+ FBI agents working the email investigation?  147 so far and counting.

It's not a criminal investigation unless there are at least 200 agents working on an investigation. 

 

[Guest]

Remember when we were laughed at when we said there was 100+ FBI agents working the email investigation?  147 so far and counting.

Or that aides and Hillary may be interviewed,. Or that there were those other 31,000 emails that we didn't believe were innocent on face value.  Or that the server may have been hacked.  And so on, and so on.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

Fantastic article.   Thanks, SID!

Can't wait to see the spin from the usual suspects.

Thanks. - As a bump, I am reposting this piece and the WaPo piece as primers for anyone who wants to read anything aside from campaign pablum.

 

[Bottomfeeder Sports]

Thanks. - As a bump, I am reposting this piece and the WaPo piece as primers for anyone who wants to read anything aside from campaign pablum.

I confess that I didn't get very far.  Do the arguments get any better than the CIA drone program is/was one of our nations top secrets?

 

[matuski]

Thanks. - As a bump, I am reposting this piece and the WaPo piece as primers for anyone who wants to read anything aside from campaign pablum.

An imaginary litigation..... the article starts out with:

Hillary Clinton’s email scandal is one of the most important, yet undiscussed issues of the 2016 election.

And remains about as engaging and novel as this throughout.  Meh.

 

[matuski]

Far from being "undiscussed", I'd say it is about the only thing the right has come up with to attack Hillary with so far.

What made me laugh the most was when I figured out the only real reason the right cares about these emails is for the fact it allows them to bring up BENGHAZI!!! again.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

I confess that I didn't get very far.  Do the arguments get any better than the CIA drone program is/was one of our nations top secrets?

Yes. I'm going to say the first is near thorough, long piece but it is by a Hillary and Democratic supporter.

 

[lod01]

What happened to my comment about the old bag Hillary? Jesus, all I asked was what was up with the pear shaped loser and it gets deleted?

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

Far from being "undiscussed", I'd say it is about the only thing the right has come up with to attack Hillary with so far.

What made me laugh the most was when I figured out the only real reason the right cares about these emails is for the fact it allows them to bring up BENGHAZI!!! again.

Despite how long the media has been covering it, I don’t think most people really understand what’s going on.

 

[Bottomfeeder Sports]

I confess that I didn't get very far.  Do the arguments get any better than the CIA drone program is/was one of our nations top secrets?

Yes. I'm going to say the first is near thorough. The long piece is by a Hillary and Democratic supporter.

Thanks.  Characterizing  "a mostly liberal Democrat and a Hillary admirer" as a Hillary supporter is all I need to know.

 

[Henry Ford]

http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2016/03/clinton-campaign-says-no-more-debates-until-bernie-starts-be-nicer

I'm confused.  

 

[squistion]

Zerlina Maxwell ‏@ZerlinaMaxwell 3h3 hours ago

.@davidplouffe on delegate math: Hillary Clinton has strengthened her hold on the nomin in the most recent contests. https://medium.com/@davidplouffe/how-can-hillary-clinton-the-democratic-frontrunner-and-close-to-presumptive-nominee-lose-five-of-47a8875c1a87#.abzfuj9b2 …

How can Hillary Clinton, the Democratic frontrunner and close to presumptive nominee lose five of the six last contests? Doesn’t that suggest the race could somehow be changing and Bernie Sanders now has a shot?

Negative.

In fact, Hillary Clinton has strengthened her hold on the nomination in the most recent contests. Because for every state that holds a contest, more delegates come off the board, and the percentage of remaining delegates Sanders has to win grows larger. The hill Bernie Sanders has to climb becomes more and more steep. Like a sheer, rock cliff. [...]

 

[matuski]

Despite how long the media has been covering it, I don’t think most people really understand what’s going on.

So instead of denying that it is the FIRST thing the right tries to discuss, now you are saying it is just misunderstood in spite of the constant discussion.

Probably because - like Benghazi, like birthers, like so many times before - you guys don't understand.  

 

[The Commish]

http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2016/03/clinton-campaign-says-no-more-debates-until-bernie-starts-be-nicer

I'm confused.  

really?

 

[matuski]

You don't get it.. this is important guys.  Seriously!  Please believe me!

 

[Henry Ford]

Zerlina Maxwell ‏@ZerlinaMaxwell 3h3 hours ago

.@davidplouffe on delegate math: Hillary Clinton has strengthened her hold on the nomin in the most recent contests. https://medium.com/@davidplouffe/how-can-hillary-clinton-the-democratic-frontrunner-and-close-to-presumptive-nominee-lose-five-of-47a8875c1a87#.abzfuj9b2 …

How can Hillary Clinton, the Democratic frontrunner and close to presumptive nominee lose five of the six last contests? Doesn’t that suggest the race could somehow be changing and Bernie Sanders now has a shot?

Negative.

In fact, Hillary Clinton has strengthened her hold on the nomination in the most recent contests. Because for every state that holds a contest, more delegates come off the board, and the percentage of remaining delegates Sanders has to win grows larger. The hill Bernie Sanders has to climb becomes more and more steep. Like a sheer, rock cliff. [...]

On February 27, 2016, Hillary Clinton had 120% of her target demographic delegate votes up to that point according to 538/Silver.  It's never gone up, and has gone down several times.  She is now at 108%.

By contrast, Sanders was at 80%.  He's now at 92%.

She is not strengthening her hold on the nomination.  She can on April 5 and 19.  But she isn't right now.

 

[Skoo]

http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2016/03/clinton-campaign-says-no-more-debates-until-bernie-starts-be-nicer

I'm confused.  

Sounds like a really, really dumb plan.

If the Bernie campaign is smart they'll be all over this.

 

[Henry Ford]

Sounds like a really, really dumb plan.

If the Bernie campaign is smart they'll be all over this.

If there's one thing I'm sure New Yorkers will back her on, it's that there's no excuse for not being constantly nice to people.

 

[lod01]

http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2016/03/clinton-campaign-says-no-more-debates-until-bernie-starts-be-nicer

I'm confused.  

Is there anything this old bag doesn't steal from Trump?  Trump comes up with 'Let's make America great again' and the loser can only plagiarize his motto. Trump says he's calling an end to debates because mods are not nice to him (M Kelly). The pear shaped loser does the same thing directing it towards Bernie. This bag cannot think for her self. She just steals everyone else's ideas.

 

[Guest]

http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2016/03/clinton-campaign-says-no-more-debates-until-bernie-starts-be-nicer

I'm confused.  

Race is almost fair.  Have to course correct.

 

[Trey]

Remember when we were laughed at when we said there was 100+ FBI agents working the email investigation?  147 so far and counting.

The FBI does not have close to 150 agents working the investigation into former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton's email server, a source familiar with the matter told POLITICO Mond

Read more: http://www.politico.com/story/2016/03/how-many-fbi-agents-hillary-clinton-email-221299#ixzz44EHlpvWk 
Follow us: @politico on Twitter | Politico on Facebook

 

[Trey]

This whole cluster#### just shows the danger of selective leaking, half-stories, and wild speculation. Is it really that difficult to wait for the investigation to be completed?

 

[Henry Ford]

This whole cluster#### just shows the danger of selective leaking, half-stories, and wild speculation. Is it really that difficult to wait for the investigation to be completed?

It is when the presidency is on the line.  If she's indicted after getting the nomination, it hands the presidency to the Republicans.

 

[squistion]

The FBI does not have close to 150 agents working the investigation into former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton's email server, a source familiar with the matter told POLITICO Mond

Read more: http://www.politico.com/story/2016/03/how-many-fbi-agents-hillary-clinton-email-221299#ixzz44EHlpvWk 
Follow us: @politico on Twitter | Politico on Facebook

As I suspected, but I didn't comment as I thought it would be fun to let Hillary haters bask in their delusion that 147 FBI agents are working 24/7 on this!!!!  

 

[Parrothead]

Vote for Hillary!  Not close to 150 FBI agents are investigating her!  Its a much smaller number - maybe only 80 or so agents!  

slap that on a bumper sticker 

or "Vote for Bernie - currently being investigated by ZERO FBI agents!"

 

[Guest]

As I suspected, but I didn't comment as I thought it would be fun to let Hillary haters bask in their delusion that 147 FBI agents are working 24/7 on this!!!!  

No one can quibble about technicality of language like H and her lawyers.  So she'd probably point out that the article claimed 147 agents had been assigned.  Anyone whose done project work knows that you add and subtract resources as needed.  So it may be true that there are 80 agents (hardly paltry), 147 may have participated at various stages.  Regardless, lets imagine it averaged 100.  For 9 months at 160 hours per month.  And the average cost of a fully burdened agent is $40 per hour.  That's close to $6 million in salary alone - not to mention the drain on resources.  So belittle the effort as much as you want.  What a waste of time and money.  Unless you argue the investigation was wholly unwarranted and unnecessary, there's no getting away from the fact this this is outrageous.  

So $6-$7m is the cost of a (depending on how you view it) convenience to use your personal device outside of the bureaucratic tape, or to avoid FOIA.  I'm light of that, I'd tack on the cost of one more tiny little thing: the Presidency.  

 

[The Commish]

The FBI does not have close to 150 agents working the investigation into former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton's email server, a source familiar with the matter told POLITICO Mond

Read more: http://www.politico.com/story/2016/03/how-many-fbi-agents-hillary-clinton-email-221299#ixzz44EHlpvWk 
Follow us: @politico on Twitter | Politico on Facebook

As I suspected, but I didn't comment as I thought it would be fun to let Hillary haters bask in their delusion that 147 FBI agents are working 24/7 on this!!!!  

So we're good with "a source familiar with the matter" in this instance?  Just trying to keep track here.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

So instead of denying that it is the FIRST thing the right tries to discuss, now you are saying it is just misunderstood in spite of the constant discussion.

Probably because - like Benghazi, like birthers, like so many times before - you guys don't understand.  

Mat, we're talking about the article I posted.  It's by a Democrat and someone who has been pro-Hillary. It's a good overview and really there haven't been any. You brought up the point about the author saying that the issue had not gotten enough depth or that people did not really understand it, not me. I mostly posted that in consideration of someone who posted a couple weeks ago who said just that and wanted information on the overall investigation. I also think the WaPo piece is pretty good if you want to look at that.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

As I suspected, but I didn't comment as I thought it would be fun to let Hillary haters bask in their delusion that 147 FBI agents are working 24/7 on this!!!!  

WaPo reporting is pretty well respected generally.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

The FBI does not have close to 150 agents working the investigation into former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton's email server, a source familiar with the matter told POLITICO Mond

http://www.politico.com/story/2016/03/how-many-fbi-agents-hillary-clinton-email-221299#ixzz44EHlpvWk 
 

- First of all thanks for responding with actual information.

I think the linked story in that article is pretty interesting too:
 

The FBI hasn't traded any correspondence with Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton or her representatives in the course of the law enforcement agency's “active, ongoing investigation” of the private email account and server she used as secretary of state, an FBI official told a federal court on Friday.

... The suit, filed by Vice News reporter Jason Leopold, also sought copies of all emails and other files the FBI has managed to retrieve from Clinton's server and backup devices such as thumb drives. The FBI appeared to acknowledge that some such records exist but said releasing them at this time could impair the probe.

"Any records responsive [to that request] still cannot be disclosed without adversely affecting the pending investigation," Hardy said in a written declaration. The FBI official wrote that he was limited in what he could say publicly about the inquiry, but he added that the agency was submitting a classified declaration to U.S. District Court Judge Randolph Moss with more details about the probe.

..."The investigation at issue here is being conducted under the FBI's assigned law enforcement authorities and in accordance therewith," Hardy wrote. "FBI Director James Comey stated before the House Judiciary Committee on October 22, 2015, that the FBI received and 'is working on a referral [from] Inspectors General in connection with former Secretary Clinton's use of a private e-mail server. Beyond Director Comey's acknowledgement of the security referral from the Inspectors General of the Intelligence Community and the Department of State, the FBI has not and cannot publicly acknowledged the specific focus, scope, or potential targets of any such investigation without adversely affecting the investigation."

Hardy also said the records on Clinton's server equipment and thumb drives "are potential evidence in the FBI's investigation or may provide leads to or context for potential evidence."

Of course, the lack of correspondence between Clinton representatives and the FBI and the limited records of such exchanges with State doesn't paint a full picture of the contacts involved if they took place in person or by telephone. Clinton lawyer David Kendall has publicly acknowledged that he received a request from the Justice Department for thumb drives containing some of Clinton's emails last July and turned them over soon thereafter. They're now believed to be in the custody of the FBI.  ...

http://www.politico.com/blogs/under-the-radar/2016/03/fbi-says-it-has-limited-records-on-clinton-email-case-221257

- About the WaPo report I'm just going to say that "147" is a really specific number and does not sound like something pulled out of thin air. When WaPo confirms reporting by Fox and WashEx I tend to believe it.

And the fact that the FBI is not denying that there may be additional recovered documentation, that that documentation may be "evidence", that there is an ongoing and active investigation, and that this is all reported to a federal court, is worth noting.

I don't have a problem with anonymous sources like some people but let's face it this denial comes after the WaPo report and could come from someone on one of the Senate committees getting updates on this stuff. The fact that they needed to respond to this so quickly is interesting too.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

This whole cluster#### just shows the danger of selective leaking, half-stories, and wild speculation. Is it really that difficult to wait for the investigation to be completed?

Never understood this. Anonymous sources are one of the bedrocks of investigative reporting. You just have to view it in context of what's going on, no it's never proof of anything in and of itself.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

Thanks.  Characterizing  "a mostly liberal Democrat and a Hillary admirer" as a Hillary supporter is all I need to know.

Was that unfair? - eta - Did not mean to be. Ok I can see how a liberal Democrat and Hillary admirer is not necessarily a Hillary supporter, but he sure sounds like he wishes he could be.

Before I begin, I will say it really saddens me that her handling of this issue has marred what was an overall outstanding and inspirational political career. Her decades of accomplishments, while breaking gender boundaries in Washington, have inspired millions in America and around the world. But a scandal regarding her record-keeping practices could end her legacy prematurely, perhaps as soon as May. Right before she was expected to shatter one of the biggest ceilings in American history.

 

[Trey]

Never understood this. Anonymous sources are one of the bedrocks of investigative reporting. You just have to view it in context of what's going on, no it's never proof of anything in and of itself.

Because every anonymous source has a partisan agenda in the current environment. So it's not as much investigative reporting as it is planting seeds to spin a news cycle. And this is true for both sides of this disaster. 

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

Because every anonymous source has a partisan agenda in the current environment. So it's not as much investigative reporting as it is planting seeds to spin a news cycle. And this is true for both sides of this disaster. 

I'm thinking outside this context.

Whistleblowers are typically the anonymous sources. Personally to me people should have as much information as they can get about public issues and allowing people to speak anonymously is one important way to encourage that.

Here in this case, we have the Washington Post reporting a very specific number. This is a confirmation of two prior reports and a very specific one. Then we have a comeback from Politico. We know that politicians on both sides of the aisle in 2-3 committees are feeding some of this information (beyond the number of FBI agents, we don't know where that is coming from) but the truth can be divined.

If you look at the prior reporting - at least 30+ accounts affected, servers at State seized, Foundations records subpoenaed, equipment and servers from 3 vendors in 3 states, the seriousness of the content involved, 147 doesn't sound like a ridiculous number to me. It's obviously an important issue though because this Politico report comes right back at it within 24 hours.

 

[matuski]

Mat, we're talking about the article I posted.  It's by a Democrat and someone who has been pro-Hillary. It's a good overview and really there haven't been any. You brought up the point about the author saying that the issue had not gotten enough depth or that people did not really understand it, not me. I mostly posted that in consideration of someone who posted a couple weeks ago who said just that and wanted information on the overall investigation. I also think the WaPo piece is pretty good if you want to look at that.

Looked at both.. same old.

People trying to convince people to care about something people don't care about.  And the more you and the author repeat yourselves that they are a liberal Hillary supporter, the more it sounds like the person you are trying to convince is yourself.

Also - two t's in Matt.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

Looked at both.. same old.

People trying to convince people to care about something people don't care about.  And the more you and the author repeat yourselves that they are a liberal Hillary supporter, the more it sounds like the person you are trying to convince is yourself.

Also - two t's in Matt.

Hey Matt sorry was just going by your handle.

You don't have to care about it. The presence of Donald makes a lot of this politically irrelevant but vs Bernie we know for Democrats for whom trust/honesty was the priority issue Sanders typically destroyed Hillary by big margins, sometimes by ~80/20. Typically this strata was in the ~20-25% range of all Dem voters in those primaries.

As for the author, if you don't want to believe him, fine.

 

[matuski]

One day there will be a legit conspiracy, but nobody is going to listen because you cried wolf too many times.

 

[matuski]

Hey Matt sorry was just going by your handle.

You don't have to care about it. The presence of Donald makes a lot of this politically irrelevant but vs Bernie we know for Democrats for whom trust/honesty was the priority issue Sanders typically destroyed Hillary by big margins, sometimes by ~80/20. Typically this strata was in the ~20-25% range of all Dem voters in those primaries.

As for the author, if you don't want to believe him, fine.

If I am missing something that we didn't already know.. or something groundbreaking - let me know.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2016/03/clinton-campaign-says-no-more-debates-until-bernie-starts-be-nicer

I'm confused.  

... Joel Benenson, the campaign's chief strategist, said on CNN Monday morning that Sanders needs to watch his tone, or else the Clinton campaign will pack up its ball and head home.


...

"Let's see the tone," Benenson continued when pressed about why Clinton was reluctant to debate. "This is a man who said he'd never run a negative ad, he's now running them, they're planning to run more, let's see the tone of the campaign he wants to run before we get to any other questions."

Benenson added, "Let's see if he goes back to the kind of tone he said he was going to set early on. If he does that, then we'll talk about debates." ...

Sanders better watch his "tone."

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kiEkLr8Zf7Y

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

One day there will be a legit conspiracy, but nobody is going to listen because you cried wolf too many times.

Here's an idea, don't listen to anyone. I'm not speaking to/at/of you personally, you're an independent thinker, just generally, people should read, listen and make up their own minds about things and don't take the word or rather pulp put out by any candidate or campaign as dogma. If they're not interested then fine, that can't be helped.

 

[jon_mx]

One day there will be a legit conspiracy, but nobody is going to listen because you cried wolf too many times.

Like the conspiracy for Trump to win the GOP nomination so even a candidate as ####### horrible as Hillary can win.  

 

[matuski]

Like the conspiracy for Trump to win the GOP nomination so even a candidate as ####### horrible as Hillary can win.  

I would actually believe something crazy is surrounding Trump's campaign.. I am still waiting for him to up and quit/ walk away any day now.

That guy and how he came to be a GOP candidate - both just nuts to me.

 

[matuski]

Here's an idea, don't listen to anyone. I'm not speaking to/at/of you personally, you're an independent thinker, just generally, people should read, listen and make up their own minds about things and don't take the word or rather pulp put out by any candidate or campaign as dogma. If they're not interested then fine, that can't be helped.

I read it and from what I see it is just a new angle on the same old.  The strategy of repeating something 1000 times 1000 different ways is tired.  It didn't make any of the prior efforts legit, nor will it here.

Again - if I missed something new that would convince me the email scandal and Benghazi are worthy of any more time than I have already given it - let me know.