I have never accepted this SC ruling... since it could be used to defend child molesters... or slick willy!
Benghazi, Benghazi, Benghazi - she's a killer and a liar.
(no message)
Nice spin!
(no message)
My line of ancestry? I confess that I don't get this at all.
Obviously, there is the irony that she ignored them, slow played them, and she obstructed them by destroying 33,000 emails with Bleach Bit, and she couldn't remember anything during her testimony. But now there is something that she wants, and it must happen yesterday.
But more important is the fact that the information cannot be released and she KNOWS it. 1) parts of it are classified
2) any information released could prejudice and undermine the investigation and it is SOP NOT to release info during the investigatory phase, and 3) Loretta Lynch has thus far refused to give Comey and the FBI a search warrant to begin investigating the emails - this was revealed today in the news.
Hillary doesn't want what was in those emails made public, but she does want to play the victim.
Your civics classes have failed you.
Here is a fact for you: the FBI has no idea what is on Weiner's laptop. They want to take a look, to see if there is anything.
This is a remarkable scandal, mostly because it is (so far, at least) content-free.
(no message)
computer.
She was utterly irresponsible as was her chief aide.
And although no one knows what is there, I am shocked that you are so willing to jump to immediate conclusions. And you think the worst! I'm stunned!
(no message)
It doesn't matter all that much which ones are there. The fact that this many state department e mails from top officials ended up there is sufficient enough to show gross irresponsibility.
In fact the only thing that matters in this is what emails were there.
(no message)
We won't know what's all in there until after the election.
The only thing that will matter by 11/8 is that large numbers of SD e mails from high officials are on a pervs laptop. A perv who accesses porno sites.
And, if there isn't sensitive stuff there, can't Huma just come out and tell us that? She knows what's on there.
(no message)
The Clinton's behavior is nothing surprising. Certainly not astounding.
Seriously, how are you going to get it back from the LTND's and Hank the Tank's who are now at the controls?
(no message)
(no message)
RINO establishment leadership of the GOP that got their butts whipped by an outsider. If they had stayed loyal to the party as Dems always do, Trump would be trouncing the witch. It is amazing and very telling, that he has gotten this far on his own. Cruz, Kasich, et al. should hang their heads in shame. If the witch wins, the country will suffer, and it will be on them.
If you don't think what happened here is astounding, good for you.
In fact if it makes you feel better, it will be equally astounding when she still wins because of the R choice.
First, a Hillary landslide could swing Congress back to the Dems, which would in turn apply pressure on the FBI director to let this go. Second, a Hillary win will embolden the folks who are now at the controls of the GOP to fixate upon this. If you haven't noticed, either by observing the creatures on this board or their favored Congressional Republicans, they never speak of policy. That's because their religion, Them Democrat Liberals Is To Blame, requires them to ignore actually governing.
The email scandal is legitimate. Benghazi is legitimate. Unfortunately for you, the dominant part of your party is now one which wants to exclusively focus on that sort of stuff rather than governing.
And anchor babies and building a wall.
Instead of taking your advice, they'd be far, far better advised to focus on ACA rather than something that astound you but doesn't astound millions of undecided voters who already know she's a shyster but are more worried about stuff like their insurance rates.
Maybe, just maybe also the Senate. Everyone also knows the ACA is fucked up but that in and of itself wouldn't be enough to avoid a potential landslide given Trump.
As to fixating on it, they have already said even before this that they will continue to do so. It may force her to be more practical in dealing with them like Bill did. It may not, but it wont change the fact that they were going to already going to make it a focus.
As to the reality of what the R's have done and their candidate, you do know you are preaching to the converted on that one?
And just as folks like you have done for the past decades, you encourage them. Sometimes explicitly, many times implicitly. They were useful in the past, but now they've broken the chains and they're loose on the countryside. You can't control them anymore yet you apparently think keeping them in power is better than allowing them to die and trying to rebuild in a couple years with some credible legislators who might actually advance an agenda other than perpetual investigations. You won't get there by returning these clowns to power. You'll be less likely to get the sort of Republicans you want in Congress.
Soros, DSA, and CPUSA? You insinuate that my positions are radical. Here they are, common sense American values. Point to the postions that you see as being radical.
1. Illegal aliens are here illegally.
2. Pro-domestic employment is indispensable.
3. A strong military is essential.
4. Special interests must be eliminated.
5. Gun ownership is sacred.
6. Government must be downsized.
7. The national budget must be balanced.
8. Deficit spending must end.
9. Reducing personal income taxes is a must.
10. Reducing business income taxes is mandatory.
11. Political offices must be available to average citizens.
12. Intrusive government must be stopped.
13. English as our core language is required.
14. Traditional family values are encouraged.
Unsurprisingly, you don't understand that. I agree with half of those positions you listed. About a quarter of them are meaningless fluffs. I can take 20 general positions of the Dems that are wildly popular with the populace. It's when general positions meet with specific policies that we find friction.
Your religion is what you imagine "conservatism" to be. You aren't conservative. Like the liberals, you believe that if we just put the right people in office, those problems you list will be fixed because you and your tribe have the "right" ideas. All but a couple of the problems you list can be fixed by the state and its agents. A conservative understands this is skeptical/pessimistic because a conservative understands that human beings are fallen creatures, throgoughly flawed and thus their institutions and their ideologies, all of them, are hopelessly flawed as well.
Your labeling of gun ownership as "sacred" is disturbing and sacrilege and indicative that politics is indeed your religion. And your worship of that and the Constitution and flags and oaths and pledges is what is called "false idolatry," Get your morals straight. Quick.
an agenda. Your post show that you lack perception and an off the wall political stance. I did not mention religion. I understand what Conservatism is. You obviously, have no concept. The right of Americans that are not known to be criminals to own firearms is a sacred right according to the Constitution, a doc that Libs have no respect for. All Constitutional rights are sacred.
You failed to point the items that I listed that you see as radical.
(no message)
(no message)
I just don't see a group of responsible legislators being in power on either side anytime soon.
Soooo, in the meantime, the least damage will be done by divided govt. The thought of the D's holding all branches of govt is not acceptable to me especially with a criminal like her in the WH. Again that is the alternative. If you like it go for it at the ballot box.
Please post a plausible scenario in which the GOP will shift away from LTND and Hank brand politics. There is a bit of irony with GOP super-gerrymandering. They've almost locked the House into that sort of politics.
for. I don't see either party moving from their current stances in the foreseeable future.
I don't know how that is in anyway unclear
It is hard to separate the subject from emails' sender line. If emails are forwarded , it is likely the subject is the original subject. it is just common sense. It's even possible that FBI actually read some emails, but without the warrant they can't report or publicly say what they have read.
Baron's point is that it is true that FBI doesn't have the warrant. So, it is impossible for FBI to release all information about the emails at this moment. With Hillary knowing it, her campaign's request to release all information is playing victim card.
(no message)
Insurance policy in case HRC ever turns on her? I can't think of any more likely explanation for why Huma would do this. Why do you think she did it?
Why do you think Comey committed career suicide? I think it was to prevent him from taking the fall for a cover up that would land him in jail as the scapegoat. What's your theory? A dyed in the wool Republican acting on partisan motives wouldn't have let Hillary go with all of the evidence at hand last summer.
Either way, we may as well get used to cookoo with the trailer moving back onto the lawn of Pennsylvania Ave.
her pedo husband's computer? Unless................
(no message)