He’s having a lot of trouble accepting “Cut the shit”. And even **Bricker **is saying that.
Ponies. Shitpiles. Done that one already. He’s making me use up all the cliches!
OK, I understand your position, now. You are only concerned about what happened in the city of Benghazi, and I am talking about the overall Benghazi investigation, which includes the “Hilary Clinton and the Terrible, Horrible, No Good, Very Bad Personal E-mail Account”.
In the same way that an investigation into an Arkansas property deal included a blowjob from a White House intern. Once you start pulling the threads it all unravels, eh, doorhinge?
Funny how often Republican investigations of Clintons stop being about what’s ostensibly being investigated and become about investigating the investigation and how far into otherwise non-topical areas they can pry, isn’t it?
ETA: Jinx!
Do you believe that Hillary should appear before the Congressional Committee?
Do you believe that Hillary should answer all of their questions?
Or do you believe they should leave Hillary alone?
What happens if the answers are “none” and “a bunch of emails and stuff that doesn’t exist and no one knows the details of”?
I believe that Hillary has already appeared before multiple Congressional committees.
I believe that all the relevant questions about the Benghazi incident have been answered, the organization responsible has been punished, and the individual who incited the incident has been arrested and imprisoned.
I wish they would leave her alone, but they’re welcome to keep digging their mass political grave as large as they want it. Please proceed, Republicans.
No, not exactly.
No, but anything related to it is already well-understood. As all the previous Republican investigations into it have shown. I have no more interest in it than any historian would.
It does? How are the e-mails related? What answers to “unanswered questions” about Benghazi do you think they might provide? What *are *those questions?
Yes. It depends on what the questions are. No, but neither should they harass her endlessly for blatantly partisan purposes.
Your turn:
Do you understand what the excluded middle in the above set of questions is?
Do you believe that Congressional investigations should have an unlimited scope?
Do you believe that investigators should be able to require the person under investigation to provide anything they ask for without challenge?
How should he know until he reads them? Of course, that reasoning is only bad when defending Obamacare.
Let’s explore the **doorhinge **worldview a little more, shall we?
The Benghazi investigations are about more than Benghazi, got it. They include all State Department e-mails from Secretary Clinton’s tenure in office, regardless of subject, got it.
What *else *does “the overall Benghazi investigation” include, friend? What is its subject matter and what are its limits? What else besides the attacks on the CIA post, er make that the US consulate, in Benghazi is part of what you call “Benghazi”? Does the term as you mean it cover anything other than trying to embarrass the next Democratic nominee for President? If you know what you mean, it should be easy to explain, and Og knows you’ve had enough opportunity.
If this were, say, a C.E.O who had been brought before Congress in an investigation would you accept the C.E.O stating:
“Yes, you have a subpoena for my emails. However, I mixed personal email with work email on a private server, not the company server. I deleted my personal emails and gave you the work product. Pinky swear! Oh, you don’t believe me? Well, prove that I deleted work email! And no, you can’t look at my server.”
Do you think that would fly?
Once again there are two part of this. Part one is whether the investigation is legitimate. The second part is whether Clinton’s actions* regardless of the legitimacy of the investigation* were correct.
FTR, I don’t think the investigation is going to show much. However, that should in no way give Clinton the leeway to decide what the investigators get to see. Also, it doesn’t make Clintons use of her own email server any more acceptable*.
Additionally, it came out today that Congress asked Clinton about personal email use in 2012.
sez the NY Times.
So Clinton punted back in 2012 and State ignored the question. That inspires confidence.
Slee
*FTR, I have no doubt that Clinton is a smart lady. That is what makes this all the more puzzling. When smart people do dumb things then cite really trivial reasons for doing those dumb things (I can’t carry two phones!) one begins to wonder if the reasons given are legitimate. An additional point on this. People cite that others have used private email for government work. This is fundamentally different. Using a Yahoo account gives you limited control of the email. Yahoo, Google and all the rest do back ups, etc. Setting up your own email server gives you a hell of a lot more control.
Part one is not in question, not having been defended. That makes part two moot, and even if it weren’t, it isn’t really in question either.
Yes, she’s smart, smart enough to know what this is all *really *about. Not everyone gets that, no, but that doesn’t make it wrong. It’s not puzzling at all, merely sensible.
Which means that Hillary should, or should not, appear, as requested, before the current Congressional Committee to answer the committee’s questions?
Yes
or
No
It’s understood that your answer will not be a deciding factor for the Congressional Committee’s action.
(Underline added)
Questions about Hilary’s Terrible, Horrible, No Good, Very Bad Personal E-mail Account were not included in the other Congressional investigations. Seems simple enough.
The Benghazi investigations are about more than what occurred in the city of Benghazi.
The Congressional investigation should include all State Department e-mails (aka government documents) from Secretary Clinton’s tenure in office.
And you were asked about how much more. How much more?
Oh. “Benghazi” to you means everything Clinton ever did as Secretary. Wow.
You don’t seem fully aware of the fact, but more things than that did happen in the world during those years. If you want things other than Benghazi investigated, then you need to push for getting those investigations created. And, which is the part you haven’t even tried to accomplish yet, be able to explain why they aren’t just more partisan fishing trips.
It’s like a Come-As-The-90s party! All they’re missing is that lovely air of leering and drooling that comes from all the old GOPers masturbating over Ken Starr’s amateur porn novel. Maybe we can find out that Bill had anal with an Islamic militant’s sister or something! Hey, get on that, Congressional investigators!
Jesus…
And yes, sure, Hillary should appear in front of the committee and answer the questions that are relevant about Benghazi. I mean, it’s already been done. Once more can’t hurt. I’m sure they’ll find some skirt-lifting to do, too.
The excluded middle ? What an interesting term. What do you mean by that? Do I understand the part that you left out?
AFAIK, this Congressional Committee doesn’t have unlimited scope. But generally-speaking, I don’t believe Congressional investigations should have unlimited scope.
Hillary doesn’t have to answer the committee’s questions. And independent voters aren’t required to vote for someone who already acts as if she has the power of Executive Privilege.
And yet the Congressional Committee’s investigation continues. What a surprise. :rolleyes: