Originally posted by Pwn N00bs
You're getting quite defensive here and that wasn't the point of contention between the both of us. I know what the title of this thread is but you're bouncing around with multiple topics trying to figure out which one sticks. The issue is the emails, not Benghazi. I also don't think you're understanding correctly what Powell did and what Hilary did. I mean, at all.
Explaining the chain of reasoning to you because you do not seem to understand it is not "getting defensive" any more than citing an analogous situation to support a point is "bouncing around multiple topics trying to make one stick."
I understand what each of the former Secretaries of State, or in the case of Condoleeza Rice, their direct actors, did. That you cited an opinion piece which argues that even if Powell and Rice did something wrong, Bush used his executive authority to grant each of them the power to retroactively reclassify their communications, thus exempting them from any wrongdoing, as evidence for your understanding makes me question if you do.
Originally posted by Pwn N00bs
Of course I can. I can cite several instances of Obama invoking executive power only for you to come back with "but the Republicans made him do it!" I can cite how the democrats tried desperately to impeach W during his presidency and ultimately failed. You seem to have a rationalization each time so there's no point in playing that game.
It is within the authority of every president to issue executive orders. If Congress believes a particular order is unlawful, it is within their authority to challenge it in court. Exercising a Constitutionally authorized power is not a crime when a Democrat does it, particularly when he has issued far fewer of them than any of his predecessors in the last 100 years.
Moreover, it is only an abuse of power to propose articles of impeachment for partisan reasons, not if he actually did something impeachable. That the proposition did not go forward is not evidence that it had no merit, but that there was not the political will for it to proceed. The Republican majority circled the wagons to ensure the proposal would go nowhere.
Originally posted by Pwn N00bs
Yes...Yet you're the one complaining about how she did nothing wrong "allegedly" and it's all a smear campaign. We're back to square one, where the FBI has enough evidence of impropriety to pursue a case against her which I don't have a problem with. If they find nothing, great. If they do, great. But I know what your predetermined response is going to be.
The FBI does not pursue cases, the Department of Justice does. The FBI is investigating to ensure that there was no impropriety related to how her data was stored. For people to have confidence in the system, they have to believe that it is fair and impartial, which means the Department of Justice has to take any accusation against a former administration official seriously, and thoroughly investigate it to ensure that there is no wrongdoing. The existence of an investigation is proof of transparency, not of guilt.