What A Dumb A$$

[Hijinx]

My point about Bush was that, he runs 2 separate emails as well. And this is much ado about nothing, as usual. And you only have Jeb's word that emails aren't missing. And I would trust the word of any crack addict over a Bush.

Maybe you can tell me how Benghazi is a real scandal? Every 6 months the crazy conservative press comes up with some Bullshit, that Hillary is up to some nefarious scheme. You guys can only cry wolf so much.

I know it angers people on the right that she is going to be president, but the making of false scandals only goes so far.

[HailGreen28]

Originally Posted by Hijinx

My point about Bush was that, he runs 2 separate emails as well. And this is much ado about nothing, as usual. And you only have Jeb's word that emails aren't missing. And I would trust the word of any crack addict over a Bush.

Running 2 separate emails isn't the problem. Clinton as a government official deleting emails requested by Congress, is. I said this to you before.

Originally Posted by Hijinx

Maybe you can tell me how Benghazi is a real scandal? Every 6 months the crazy conservative press comes up with some Bullshit, that Hillary is up to some nefarious scheme. You guys can only cry wolf so much.

The Obama administration's initially saying it was because of a youtube video, and subsequent finger-pointing, was sleazy but politics as usual. As with Watergate, it's the coverup afterwards that is the major issue.

Originally Posted by Hijinx

I know it angers people on the right that she is going to be president, but the making of false scandals only goes so far.

If you deliberately destroy evidence in a government investigation, it's not a false scandal.

[JoeRedskin]

You can hate J. Bush all you want and excoriate those on the right as going fishing. Fine.

The bottom line, however, is that, for good reason, Clinton was expected - by law - to maintain a government email account and to communicate her State business through that account. She did not.

The legal requirement very obviously serves the beneficial public purpose of ensuring that the maintenance of official government correspondence is done by a third party, not the official whose correspondence may be subject to later scrutiny. Thus, the email can't be "sanitized" by the individual subject to scrutiny.

Instead, in this case, we must trust that Clinton will fully identify each and every relevant email (even if not ultimately produced) from her private email account rather than have a server that can been reviewed by a judge or other independent third party, to determine if all relevant electronic correspondence has been identified. While I don't ascribe to her the evil intent some do, I also do not trust Ms. Clinton's honesty and integrity any more than you do Mr. Bush's.

Further, had she simply complied with the law, this particular stink would not have even occurred. Right Wing Nut Job Request: "State Department we are making a FOIA request for Ms. Clinton's emails while serving as Secretary of State; particularly those relating to the Benghazi attack." State's Response: "Here you go, 4,000 emails. Based on national security, we had to redact their content, to whom they were sent, and when they were sent. Enjoy." Sure they could have filed a suit, but given the discretion granted on issues of national security, it likely would have been thrown out.

I don't give a damn about the actual content of the e-mails. I do care about the accountability and compliance with rule of law. Consistent with her approach to governance, however, neither of these issues appear to concern Ms. Clinton.

[Giantone]

Originally Posted by JoeRedskin

You can hate J. Bush all you want and excoriate those on the right as going fishing. Fine.

The bottom line, however, is that, for good reason, Clinton was expected - by law - to maintain a government email account and to communicate her State business through that account. She did not.

The legal requirement very obviously serves the beneficial public purpose of ensuring that the maintenance of official government correspondence is done by a third party, not the official whose correspondence may be subject to later scrutiny. Thus, the email can't be "sanitized" by the individual subject to scrutiny.

Instead, in this case, we must trust that Clinton will fully identify each and every relevant email (even if not ultimately produced) from her private email account rather than have a server that can been reviewed by a judge or other independent third party, to determine if all relevant electronic correspondence has been identified. While I don't ascribe to her the evil intent some do, I also do not trust Ms. Clinton's honesty and integrity any more than you do Mr. Bush's.

Further, had she simply complied with the law, this particular stink would not have even occurred. Right Wing Nut Job Request: "State Department we are making a FOIA request for Ms. Clinton's emails while serving as Secretary of State; particularly those relating to the Benghazi attack." State's Response: "Here you go, 4,000 emails. Based on national security, we had to redact their content, to whom they were sent, and when they were sent. Enjoy." Sure they could have filed a suit, but given the discretion granted on issues of national security, it likely would have been thrown out.

I don't give a damn about the actual content of the e-mails. I do care about the accountability and compliance with rule of law. Consistent with her approach to governance, however, neither of these issues appear to concern Ms. Clinton.

If by law then why did no one notice ?As was said before she violated no laws and I will say here I have no problem with J Bush he is not the moron his brother is .This email thing is nothing but a wild goose chase .

[Chico23231]

Donald Trump: 'I am the only one who can make America truly great again' - Richmond.com: Ap

Cant have this thread without Trump

[MTK]

Originally Posted by Chico23231

Donald Trump: 'I am the only one who can make America truly great again' - Richmond.com: Ap



Cant have this thread without Trump

Mr. Dumbass himself.

[over the mountain]

I never understood the Benghazi thing.

What could any Pres or Sec of State done differently? Im pretty sure decisions as to embassy security probably fall to someone lower than the Pres.

Did Obama or Clinton call back those marines who were 5 hours away? That would have gotten there after the fact anyway and leave what they were protecting vulnerable?

Just think of the republican backlash if marines had been ordered to go to benghazi then what they were protecting was attacked?

Does it really fucking matter if the pres or state dept uses the word "terrorist" in a briefing a few hours after an incident when facts are still being gathered?

after the cartoon attack in France fox news was all over the fact that the WH didnt say the word "terrorist attack" right away. what does that matter? is fox news implying that the WH is protecting or coddling terrorists? why not cover the actual news story instead of spinning it into an attack on Obama somehow?

mountain out of mole hill media stunts by some republicans are just tired, played out and a big part of their party problems.

focus on real issues and solutions and not trying to politicize everything in a negative, fear mongering way.

god forbid Obama didnt announce an ebola czar. like naming someone with that title would change anything or suddenly cure ebola. fox was non stop running talk about how obama was jeopardizing the american people with a genocide epidemic. .. .. he is not a leader .... he is no reagan ... obama should have armed the syrian rebels (who ened up being ISIS and al qaeda by the way ....



i feel dumber for venturing in here . . .

[That Guy]

there are too many that are more concerned about proving themselves right or shouting louder, and not enough that are concerned with trying to get things done (cause those typically aren't the kind of people that run for or win elections).