Offline
Apologies to my conservative friends, but, when I contrast the OIG report with the hysterical headlines, and when I put this in the context of 8 - or is it 10? - Benghazi hearings,,,,,,, I think that witch-hunt is an apt term.
Last edited by Goose (5/26/2016 3:33 pm)
Offline
Everyone is entitled to their own opinion. While you and others may think it is a witch hunt, others feel it is a legitimate issue.
Nothing wrong with differences of opinion.
Offline
Just Fred wrote:
Like I said ............ Bring 'em all in! If this is so freakin' important to our national security, then Albright, Rice, Powell, and Kerry should get the same treatment, too. Why single out one individual and let the others off the hook? Grill them all!
We need a 'special committee'. Put John McCain in charge.
Oh, I think we know the answer.
Offline
tennyson wrote:
Just Fred wrote:
Like I said ............ Bring 'em all in! If this is so freakin' important to our national security, then Albright, Rice, Powell, and Kerry should get the same treatment, too. Why single out one individual and let the others off the hook? Grill them all!
We need a 'special committee'. Put John McCain in charge.Oh, I think we know the answer.
One answer would be is Albright, Rice, Powell, and Kerry did not have a a private server set up in their house and lie about! That's a pretty good start.
Last edited by Common Sense (5/26/2016 4:06 pm)
Offline
I don't think that an IG for the State Dept appointed by President Obama is involved with a witch-hunt.
Read the report. The link is at the beginning of this thread.
And why would the FBI do this?
One former State Department staffer who worked on Hillary Clinton's private email server, Bryan Pagliano, was granted immunity so he would cooperate as part of the probe.
Offline
Also note Albright, Rice, Powell, and Kerry spoke with the IG and Clinton refused to meet with the IG's office.
Offline
Common Sense wrote:
Also note Albright, Rice, Powell, and Kerry spoke with the IG and Clinton refused to meet with the IG's office.
The significance of that being?
Offline
tennyson wrote:
Goose wrote:
Brady Bunch wrote:
Her use of the server definitely was not allowed and approved, as she initially claimed. Should we really be shocked that Hillary lied?
I just don't see how anybody can trust a thing that comes out of her mouth.Well, if you are looking for a politician that you can completely trust, I guess that you are sitting this century out.
Exactly !
I understand peoples problems with Hillary but as I look at it from a financial and security standpoint (even the honesty issue) I cannot EVER vote for Trump and unless a third party comes along that could win it all that leave me little choice. Also, I don't have the visceral hate that some have for her.
Right there with you.
Having to vote against someone instead of for someone.
How the hell did this happen?
Offline
tennyson wrote:
Just Fred wrote:
Like I said ............ Bring 'em all in! If this is so freakin' important to our national security, then Albright, Rice, Powell, and Kerry should get the same treatment, too. Why single out one individual and let the others off the hook? Grill them all!
We need a 'special committee'. Put John McCain in charge.Oh, I think we know the answer.
It's just another form of mud-slinging.
Offline
Conspiracy Theory wrote:
tennyson wrote:
Just Fred wrote:
Like I said ............ Bring 'em all in! If this is so freakin' important to our national security, then Albright, Rice, Powell, and Kerry should get the same treatment, too. Why single out one individual and let the others off the hook? Grill them all!
We need a 'special committee'. Put John McCain in charge.Oh, I think we know the answer.
It's just another form of mud-slinging.
Right, I don't remember any front page headlines for any of the others for doing it. As a matter of fact IF any headlines occurred they were likely a matter of fact. Perhaps someone else wants to search out just what happened in each of the other cases.