Be careful what you say about H-Dog, she'll point the finger of doom at you.
I love the whole idea of Hilary getting sick of other peoples apparent lies. It's like Charlie Sheen telling someone he is sick and tired of their usage of hookers and cocaine.
Originally posted by Pwn N00bs
This is just a poor rationalization all around. "It matters just because you don't like her!" You might as well accuse me of being racist if I had a problem with Obama.
Embassy Attacks Under Colin Powell and Condoleeza Rice: 13
Deaths from Those Attacks: 87
Congressional Republicans Outraged: 0
Embassy Attacks Under Hillary Clinton: 1
Deaths from Those Attacks: 4
Congressional Republicans Outraged: 301
Colin Powell and Condoleeza Rice also used private emails to conduct state business, and the Bush administration conducted White House business on a private server set up by the Republican National Committee, resulting in 22 million emails related to a criminal investigation being irretrievable.
It is not a poor rationalization when the outrage is nothing but selective.
The only people to whom this matters are people who are looking for ammunition, plain and simple.
Originally posted by Adam_PoE
Embassy Attacks Under Colin Powell and Condoleeza Rice: 13
Deaths from Those Attacks: 87
Congressional Republicans Outraged: 0Embassy Attacks Under Hillary Clinton: 1
Deaths from Those Attacks: 4
Congressional Republicans Outraged: 301Colin Powell and Condoleeza Rice also used private emails to conduct state business, and the Bush administration conducted White House business on a private server set up by the Republican National Committee, resulting in 22 million emails related to a criminal investigation being irretrievable.
It is not a poor rationalization when the outrage is nothing but selective.
The only people to whom this matters are people who are looking for ammunition, plain and simple.
Not that I need to do this because I remember clearly, but here:
https://www.google.com/search?q=Embassy+Attacks+Under+Colin+Powell+and+Condoleeza+Rice&oq=Embassy+Attacks+Under+Colin+Powell+and+Condoleeza+Rice&aqs=chrome..69i57.257j0j4&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8#q=Embassy+Attacks+Under+Colin+Powell+and+Condoleezza+Rice
It seems like you have a selective memory and are quite hypocritical, because you're only concerned with what republicans do and what they're hypocritical about, yet never mentioning the wrongdoings and hypocrisy of the left. You're right about it being selective but you are just as guilty as those nailing Hilary to the cross. I'm more than certain you were bitching and moaning when Bush was president. Furthermore, please clarify where Powell, Rice, and the Bush administration used private emails/servers to conduct business. Not saying it didn't happen but I don't remember that.
Originally posted by Adam_PoE
To the contrary, this issue, like Benghazi, only matters to people who are looking to justify their dislike of her and who were not going to vote for her anyway.
For the majority, I would assume that's safe to say. But I've also heard of polls stating that her popularity and accountability has been damaged to some degree with the undecided crowd. This is in regards to all her 'controversies' stacked up.
Would be lazy to assume the smear machine against her hasn't worked at all, imo.
Originally posted by Robtard
For the majority, I would assume that's safe to say. But I've also heard of polls stating that her popularity and accountability has been damaged to some degree with the undecided crowd. This is in regards to all her 'controversies' stacked up.Would be lazy to assume the smear machine against her hasn't worked at all, imo.
There was no need for a "smear" campaign as this would have affected her regardless, albeit to a lesser extent maybe.
Originally posted by Robtard
If you believe there was no real need, that just makes those doing it look even more petty. Tom Petty.
Possibly but Hilary isn't some outlier here. Republicans smear Democrats and vice versa. Who cares? Why we're talking about the severity of what she did, or the "smear" campaign, is beyond me.
Originally posted by Pwn N00bs
Not that I need to do this because I remember clearly, but here:
https://www.google.com/search?q=Embassy+Attacks+Under+Colin+Powell+and+Condoleeza+Rice&oq=Embassy+Attacks+Under+Colin+Powell+and+Condoleeza+Rice&aqs=chrome..69i57.257j0j4&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8#q=Embassy+Attacks+Under+Colin+Powell+and+Condoleezza+Rice
What is that supposed to prove exactly?
Originally posted by Pwn N00bs
It seems like you have a selective memory and are quite hypocritical, because you're only concerned with what republicans do and what they're hypocritical about, yet never mentioning the wrongdoings and hypocrisy of the left. You're right about it being selective but you are just as guilty as those nailing Hilary to the cross. I'm more than certain you were bitching and moaning when Bush was president.
It is not hypocritical. I am merely holding conservatives to their own standard.
Colin Powell, Condoleeza Rice, and Hillary Clinton are all former Secretaries of State who used a private server and a private email account to conduct official state business. Yet, only Clinton is being investigated for it.
It could not possibly be, like the inquiry into Benghazi, an admitted attempt by Republicans to drive down her poll numbers?
Originally posted by Pwn N00bs
Furthermore, please clarify where Powell, Rice, and the Bush administration used private emails/servers to conduct business. Not saying it didn't happen but I don't remember that.
What is that supposed to prove exactly?
It is not hypocritical. I am merely holding conservatives to their own standard.
Colin Powell, Condoleeza Rice, and Hillary Clinton are all former Secretaries of State who used a private server and a private email account to conduct official state business. Yet, only Clinton is being investigated for it.
It could not possibly be, like the inquiry into Benghazi, an admitted attempt by Republicans to drive down her poll numbers?
http://articles.latimes.com/2007/apr/12/nation/na-emails12
The e-mails were considered potentially crucial evidence in congressional inquiries launched by Democrats into the role partisan politics may have played in such policy decisions as the firing of eight U.S. attorneys.
Emphasis mine. Sounds kinda familiar, hmm?
But this whole thread is pointless and biased from every perspective. Did Hilary do something wrong? Absolutely? Does it warrant the backlash? I don't think so.
Originally posted by Adam_PoE
It is not hypocritical. I am merely holding conservatives to their own standard.Colin Powell, Condoleeza Rice, and Hillary Clinton are all former Secretaries of State who used a private server and a private email account to conduct official state business. Yet, only Clinton is being investigated for it.
Except Rice didn't use email as SoS her subordinates did and Powell had a (google, yahoo or "private" email) only HIllary used a private server.
Hillary didn't break the law with her attempt at being clever and using her home server. What happened with the information being sent and what was sent is in question.
Hillary sent and received sensitive material, thats a given now its up to the FBI and the DOJ to see where they take this.
Originally posted by snowdragon
Except Rice didn't use email as SoS her subordinates did and Powell had a (google, yahoo or "private" email) only HIllary used a private server.Hillary didn't break the law with her attempt at being clever and using her home server. What happened with the information being sent and what was sent is in question.
Hillary sent and received sensitive material, thats a given now its up to the FBI and the DOJ to see where they take this.
This is something you seem to understand more than the rest of us but you've made it sound much more serious than I originally thought. If that is indeed the difference then it's a substantial one.
Originally posted by Pwn N00bs
That there was plenty of flack for the failings of Rice and Powell.
Yet there were no investigations into the 87 deaths that occurred on their watch.
Originally posted by Pwn N00bs
No you're not, because when something happens on the left, you're as silent as a hitman. Because you don't hold the left to the same standards, it makes you a hypocrite. The difference between you and I is, I will call out the right when they do something stupid. You won't do the same thing to the left, instead electing to deflect blame.
This is a "both sides do it" false equivalency. Both sides do not do this. When Democrats abuse the power of government to undermine a presidential candidate from the opposing party, I will gladly criticize them for it. As it is, this is a discussion about the FBI investigation in the private server and email use of Clinton, not "I-know-Republicans-are-behaving-badly-but-what-about-Democrats?"
Originally posted by Pwn N00bs
You keep saying this but I'm waiting for proof.
Originally posted by Pwn N00bs
Maybe to drive them down further, they were going to go down without the Republicans' help.
In other words, it is completely acceptable for Republicans to abuse the House oversight powers for partisan political purposes, so long as the effects are negligible? Got it.
Originally posted by Pwn N00bs
Emphasis mine. Sounds kinda familiar, hmm?
The situations seem similar, but they are not the same.
The investigation launched by Democrats was regarding the partisan firing of eight U.S. attorneys. Investigators already had evidence in the form of email correspondence that at least one attorney was fired for political reasons. The inquiry into the private server and email use of Bush administration officials was the result of as many as 5 million emails related to the case conveniently going missing. At best it was a violation of federal recording keeping laws, and at worst it was obstruction of justice, and nothing came of it.
In the case of Clinton, her private server and email use is itself the scandal. There is no evidence of malfeasance, and she has not broken any laws. Yet, the coverage and interest is completely lopsided.
Originally posted by snowdragon
What happened with the information being sent and what was sent is in question.Hillary sent and received sensitive material, thats a given now its up to the FBI and the DOJ to see where they take this.
The State Department has already confirmed that she did not send or receive any classified information. The Department of Justice is only investigating the storage of materials related to her email account.
Originally posted by Adam_PoE
The State Department has already confirmed that she did not send or receive any classified information.
Source this because up to this point the only thing they have verified is that nothing was MARKED. If emails are deemed to have sensitive material on them they don't appear spontaneously, they have to be sent and or received. Before the FBI stepped in it was all word smithing to dance around the subject.
"In January, the State Department said it had come across 22 emails from Clinton's private account that had to be upgraded to "Top Secret," which means the emails were completely withheld from being publicly released along with the rest of her emails."
"The Office of the Inspector General for the State Department recently confirmed in a Memo that former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton sent emails with classified information in them through her private email account without marking them as classified."
Just Google:
OIG confirms Clinton sent classified emails through private account