Hello, is this Fatted Calfs 'R Us? Yeah, may have a Prodigal Son party coming up, and figured I best get an estimate? That much? Well, half of one?
Politifact takes on the email thing.
TL;DR version:
- She shouldna oughta unilaterally decided what emails to delete.
- That said, she still turned over 30,000 emails to the State Department.
- There’s no proof she destroyed evidence relevant to any Congressional investigations (although I suppose there wouldn’t be, would there…)
(post shortened)
I’m sure this has proven to be very embareassing to Hillary. And I agree with your assessment that Congressional investigators are looking for transparency AND to embareass Hillary. As they used to say, all work and no play makes Jack a dull boy.
Hillary had the option of ending these inquiries very early on. She chose not to. Her choice. That’s not the fault of the Congressional Committees investigating the events leading up to, during, and after the murder of a U.S. Ambassador, and three other Americans.
If only Hillary had the power of Executive Privilege. That would end these embareassing investigations. It wouldn’t stop people from asking questions, but the investigations would stop.
You have a list, do you?
Oh, I doubt they care that much about transparency. That could come back to bite them later. No, this is pretty much just about embarrassing Hillary.
Which is not to say there aren’t legitimate questions here, but I doubt they give a flying fuck about them unless they make Hillary look bad.
Now, now…give them SOME credit. They’d be perfectly happy to make Obama look bad, too.
OK, just for giggles: You’ve repeatedly made solemn, dire pronouncements about “unanswered questions” about Benghazi. How about articulating a few of those “unanswered questions” for us, questions none of the previous Republican investigations apparently thought to ask or considered not worth asking, prior to reaching their conclusions? Are there, in fact, “unanswered questions” more specific than “What’s in the e-mails?”
“When did you first contact Ansar Al-Sharia to arrange for the murder of the Ambassador and his staff?” “Why were no assault vehicles airdropped into Benghazi that night to rescue the five martyrs in a Michael-Bay-directed extravaganza?” etc etc etc
“Why wasn’t the A-Team called in? When was H.M. Murdock sprung from the asylum? Why didn’t anybody give B.A. Baracus a sedative so they could put him on a plane?”
“What’s in the emails” seems like a gosh darn good question to start with, but I’m in favor of investigations. Your opinion may vary.
Currently, the questions to Hillary should center around why Hillary did not see fit to notify the Congressional Committees that she had government files on her personal server that the committees had not seen. She should also be asked why she did not voluntarily provide the government files when it became public knowledge that she had them in her possession. And, of course, there should be the usual questions hoping to clarify the events leading up to, during, and after the Benghazi debacle.
Remember, Hillary told Congress that, “It is our job to figure out what happened and do EVERYTHING we can to prevent it from ever happening again”? I would like to hear what Hillary has discovered to date. Again, your opinion may vary.
What’s in yours? It’s too open-ended a question.
We’re asking for serious unanswered questions about Benghazi. As far as we can tell, there simply aren’t any. The matter has been investigated exhaustively.
Apparently it hasn’t been investigated exhaustively. The trail of evidence led to Hillary’s private, off-site server. It did not lead to your server, or to mine. Perhaps you could create your own version of the “LEAVE BRITNEY ALONE” video, and hope it influences the Congressional investigators?
The Congressional committee has questions they would like answered. You (aka we) do not have any questions for Hillary, or the State Dept., or the WH, or any other Democrat. It’s as if you’re attempting to preemptively grant Hillary Executive Privilege before she’s earned it. Until then, the investigation continues.
What trail of evidence, exactly? Who blew the whistle and leaked actual contents? No one. There isn’t any evidence.
Can you actually specify one?
A Congressional committee Just Asking Questions may have more authority than random people on the internet JAQing off, but it doesn’t mean they’ve actually got more evidence to justify it.
She hid something and lied about it. With politicians, that’s probable cause.
Sorry. As the expression goes, “that dog don’t hunt.”
You have no proof that she hid anything. And your suspicion isn’t probable cause.
She’s a politician and according to David Geffen, “lies so easily”. She’s proven she can’t be trusted to be honest. If she deleted emails, she had a good reason.
Why should we give a shit what David Geffen thinks? What’s so all-important about his viewpoint? If Emo Phillips says she’s honest, for example, does his opinion carry just as much weight with you?
Geffen was a longtime supporter of hers. Unlike Emo Phillips, he actually knew her. His statement was arguably devastating to her campaign, especially since Obama refused to criticize it. With good reason.
But really, are we actually trying to deny that the Clintons lie easily? C’mon now. This is the Dope, not a Sunday talk show. You don’t need to carry water for her here.
I’m not carrying water for anyone. My point is that friends, particularly former friends, and former love interests may not be the most objective sources of info. Especially if they may have an axe to grind.
My ex-wife wants to reconcile, but that wouldn’t stop her from giving you a list of my worst qualities, even if she exaggerated in doing so.