I’ve seen little evidence you’re willing to apply the same standard to politicians you support. That politicians as a class lie with facility is a cliche millenia-old. That Hillary and Bill do so to an extraordinary extent is something you’ve utterly failed to demonstrate.
Am I happy that they lie? No. Do I think the other politicians and media types attacking the Clintons are doing so in the interests of truth, justice and the American way? Hell, no - they’re lying too. Welcome to politics.
Sure politicians lie. As I said earlier in the thread, when poilticians are suspected of wrongdoing they have to prove to their employers that they didn’t do wrong. Politics is not criminal justice. No one has a right to office. They either smell like roses or they get booted, or at least that’s how it should be. There are many less important professions where if you have ANYTHING questionable in your record, you won’t get the job. We let politicians get away with past felonies.
Not from a Benghazi committee. What questions about Benghazi remain unanswered? :dubious:
Are you also in favor of partisan fishing trips?
You’ve been asked what those questions are. Do you even know?
I note you’re going by the Napoleonic code here - anyone “suspected of wrongdoing” must prove their innocence rather than those harboring suspicions being required to have some sort of substantial basis for an investigation. Does that only apply to politicians?
And remind me again which candidate you’re currently supporting (or at least likely to hold your nose and vote for) again? Do they meet the same standards you’re applying to Clinton?
Unfortunately for adaher, all of this being “suspected of wrongdoing” has led to nothing, despite investigation after investigation. But none of that factual stuff the libtards keep insisting on matters; only that she continues to be “suspected” and therefore must be guilty of something.
As the dear, departed Ann Landers used to say, “Wake up and smell the coffee, Buttercup.”
(post shortened)
Hillary has provided some documents, in paper form, that she had government documents on her private server.
That is evidence.
Evidence of what?
Evidence that the information provided to the Congressional Committee stating that Hillary had government documents on her personal server was correct.
Evidence that Hillary actually did have government documents on her personal server.
Evidence that the trail of evidence leading to Hillary’s private server was correct.
Hillary has already provided proof that she had government documents on her private server.
What point are you trying to make?
(post shortened)
I’ve provided questions that I would like the Congressional investigators to ask Hillary. I do not have access to the questions that the Congressional Committee will be asking Hillary in the future. Since it appears that Hillary will be questioned behind closed doors, we (you and I) may never know every question that will be asked, or which questions Hillary will chose to answer.
Either way, the investigation will continue.
As you may remember, I did not demand a stop to the investigations into Christie and Bridgegate. That was a partisan fishing trip complete with torches and pitchforks. Christy chose to cooperated with investigators, and after at least three investigations, there is no evidence that Christy closed, or redirected, any traffic.
Those investigation do suggest that the Port Authority of New York & New Jersey is a wretched hive of scum and villainy. But the lame stream media chose to ignore that and concentrate their efforts on inventing stories about Christie.
I don’t believe that Hillary should be exempt from answering questions from the voters, or from the voter’s elected representatives. You may have a different opinion.
At the time Hillary was following the law and established practice by keeping government docs on her private server. So who cares if there was evidence that she followed the law and established practice by previous SoS?
Except the topic you’ve been discussing is Benghazi, remember? 
Any related to Benghazi? That’s the charter of this latest, and all previous, Republican investigations. So far you ain’t got nothin’ related.
So you still claim there are “unanswered questions”, but you don’t even know what the fuck they are? Not even any guesses? Come on, you can do better than that, right?
And the next one, and the next, right up until Election Day. That’s a good thing, I agree, but not for the same reason you think so.
The charges are due to be filed within a few weeks.
That he hired himself, using taxpayer money. Yes, his own investigation into himself cleared him.
I don’t. But you know as well as anyone that that is not what’s happening. And if you don’t, there’s no excuse.
You asked, I answered.
Unlike Hillary.
No, you did not. But there’s no need to; we both know, don’t we?
Yes, I did.
I have absolutely no idea what you think you know. But whatever it is, don’t include me in this “we” delusion you’re having.
Hillary will be asked questions by the Congressional investigators. I have no control over what questions they will be asking her.
I hope they will ask her why she didn’t tell the investigators, and the voting public, why she was hiding the fact that she was storing government documents on her personal server.
IOW, you can’t even guess what an “unanswered question about Benghazi” might even be, you just know they’re out there. 
Sure.
All right, I was wrong, we don’t *both *know.
Do you make room for the possibility that questions directed to Secretary Clinton will be crafted to make her look bad, as opposed to arising from a neutral desire to ascertain facts that will assist Congress in passing legislation?
Of course.
There have been no neutral desires in the last several Congress’s. Politics is politics. That doesn’t exempt Hillary, or any other politician, or Presidential contender, from being expected to answer questions concerning their actions on behalf of the taxpayers.
Hillary was Sec. of State. Benghazi happened on Hillary’s watch. Hillary had government documents on her personal server. How does any of these facts exclude Hillary from being expected to answer Congressional inquiries?
Hillary puts her pants suit on one leg at a time, just like everyone else. 
(Bold, italic, and underline added.)
I see no point in guessing. Hillary will appear before the Congressional investigators and they will request answers to their questions. Hillary will make speeches, and might even answer a question, or two.
You can guess if you’re in the mood. That doesn’t mean that the Congressional investigators will follow your lead.
Context is never your friend, is it?
Then all of your portentous proclamations about “unanswered questions” are not based even on so much as your guesses? You can’t find any mentioned in any of the previous reports, but you know they’re there, even if you can’t even fucking make any up? 
Priceless.