It is good to see bold defiance on a message board, it reminds us that courage exists even without consequences.
Hillary doesn’t have to cooperate, or fully cooperate, or partially cooperate, with criminal, civil, or Congressional investigations. Her actions will still be discussed by the voting public.
Eric Holder? Eric “Fast and Furious” Holder? The same Eric Holder who was found in contempt of Congress for refusing to turn over documents tied to the botched Fast and Furious gun-running operation? The Eric Holder who was granted Executive Privilege, by Obama, to prevent him from talking about his, or Obama’s, participation in an illegal gun-running operation? What does he have to do with Hillary’s emails?
This is true. And the voting public doesn’t have the right to examine her personal email either.
An investigating committee of the House of Representatives tried to obtain his papers, documents, files, and records…without probable cause…and were told no. There is no obligation for anyone to cooperate with an improper investigation.
If Congress could demand to see any Administration branch documents, then the separation of powers would be severely undermined.
What if the FBI were to demand to look at a Congressman’s files, without probable cause, just because they’re conducting an investigation? Would you insist that the Congressman turn over all his documents and cooperate with the investigation? Why should Administration officials be subject to such an unreasonable demand?
Rein that back, Elvis.
Heck, everyone keep it together.
And he was, typically, being insulting.
A member of the Democratic party is a Democrat and no one has claimed otherwise. You score no points by trying to change the terms under discussion.
This is disingenuous. One refers to a member of the Democratic Party as a Democrat and no one claims otherwise. The insulting phrase is “Democrat Party” and you score no more points than your predecessor by trying to change the terms of the discussion.
This is utterly inaccurate. It is possible that you, personally, have not expressed offense, but several of your political associates have.
[ /Moderating ]
That said, the following comments are out of line. Take insults to The BBQ Pit.
[ /Moderating ]
You didn’t mention my third example where the presiding officer recognized Senator Reid as the Democrat Leader.
Mr. Reid could have easily said “Mr. President, I request that the Chair refer to me as the Democratic Leader.” The Chair would have said “without objection”, and they both would have moved on. Senator Reid didn’t even bother.
I don’t why this is a sticking point on an internet message board, when the alleged difference between “Democrat” and “Democratic” isn’t even remarked upon by the party’s own leadership.
Missed this one yesterday, but you make a fair request.
I, too, am not a Senator. I would prefer you* use “Republican”. How about it?
*Not js, the generic you.
The presiding officer was speaking inaccurately, and probably with deliberate provocation. Senator Reid is the Democratic Leader, the ranking member of the Democratic Party. That’s the party’s name. You can read it on their letterhead and everything.
Of course. That’s the proper name.
You are still changing the terminology. He did not say “the leader of the Democrat party.” I have already noted that the word Democrat correctly identifies a member of the Democratic Party. You are trying to weasel away from the issue by changing terms.
And this hijack is now at an end.
[ /Moderating ]
Can you clarify this? Are you saying that - having made several assertions of your own on the subject and called people’s posts disingenuous etc. - that anyone who responds to your posts on the subject is now in violation of moderator instructions?
nm - he’ll just deny it.
Regards,
Shodan
Benghazi, son.
This was actually a genuine request for clarification. It’s hard to imagine that he would do this type of thing, but OTOH it’s hard to imagine what else he might have meant.
Personally, I would like to respond to his assertion that I was being disingenuous - which I believe was based on his misinterpreting my words and ignoring their context - but don’t want to get involved in rules violations.
This can be discussed in ATMB.
ETA: Clarification:
A discussion regarding whether “Democrat Party” is insulting can be taken up in a new thread rather than further hijacking this one.
A discussion of the Mod Notes may be taken up in ATMB.
(post shortened)
It was Hillary’s poor choice to store government emails, and her personal emails, on the same non-government server. The voting public does have a right to view her government emails, and it should not Hillary’s choice to decide which emails are the governments, and which emails are hers.
An exception applies for those people who believe that Hillary must never be questioned. 
IIRC, the investigation of the Fast and Furious operation led to Eric Holder’s Just-Us dept… Requesting Just-Us dept., and Holder’s, records would be part of a proper investigation.
The down-side to all this is that I don’t believe Eric “Fast and Furious” Holder can be trusted to investigate himself, or Hillary, even if it is his job.
Do you believe I fall into this camp?
Why not? Apparently, Republicans are on the honor system when they say they never use personal accounts for government business; why can’t we demand to see all of Ted Cruz’s personal emails, just to be certain there are no government emails mixed in there?
No. I’m under the impression that you were asking that Hillary not be treated like every other politician.
I suppose that’s true. In actuality, I’m asking that she, and all other politicians, be treated the same way, but not the way they’re currently treated.