Apparently in what passes for your mind, Hillary Clinton's chief of staff exists not to carry out Her will but is some sort of independent force with which Mrs. Clinton is hardly even familiar and with which she certainly has no relationship. Meanwhile in the sane world, one's chief of staff is assumed to be acting on one's orders.
There is ample documentation for all this, including from the New York Times. When you assign the NYT as part of the vast right wing conspiracy, you've lost all credibility.
Well, we've seen him caught walking weapons to drug cartels for no better reason than to have them show up at crime scenes to support his anti-gun policies, with no consequences whatsoever, so clearly the answer would be nothing would happen.
the NY Times may be a largely liberal newspaper, but they (or at least specifically, their Washington bureau if not the editorial board) have had a hardon for attacking the Clintons since the 90's.
Contrasting the objectives of the 'guns for hostages' scandal and 'Fast and Furious' scandal is quite interesting and says a lot about the sheer depth of mental depravity we're dealing with here.
I suppose it depends on what one considers something. When a lawyer certifies a close friend as destitute so that she gets a $300,000 "loan" even though that friend's husband owns a bank, I see that as something. When a Presidential candidate is caught largely financing his campaign with illegal donations from foreign governments and interests, I see that as something. When a SecState gets caught using her own private server for all official business, including classified and sensitive discussions, some of which are hacked and made available, I see that as something. YMMV but I would be interested as to what you would consider a fire.
OK. I've not read it. The fact that you think it's a scandal is irrelevant to me because you are the party the cries wolf. I'm not sure why this simple concept still escapes you.
Another straw man. There's a shocker. When lying about others is your primary means of engagement, YOU have no credibility to lose. Get well soon.
Agreed, although I suspect that Obama knew nothing about Fast and Furious until it broke. Nonetheless he chose to own it when he declared the entire federal government as his counsel.
An even simpler concept is clear to me: you will support your team to any and all extent, and damn the consequences.
personally, I'm waiting for clear evidence of wrong-doing.
Lol Bowfinger, the far left's chief multi tool.
Lol okay, buddy. If you want to believe the woman is honestly incapable of juggling a whopping two email accounts and yet is still well qualified to be President, so be it.
So you'd be fine with the next Republican administration also doing its business on RNC servers? Remember, this is the party which has judges unsealing divorce records and Democrat operatives using sophisticated scanners to eavesdrop on cell phone calls. Surely if this is okay for Hillary, it's also okay for the Pubbies. And if it's okay for everyone, why don't we simply write out the Constitutional Congressional oversight powers and responsibilities, so that the Executive Branch can officially do whatever it wishes? Either we make the Executive Branch the sole branch, or we make them so subject to the Judicial Branch. Either way, we've eliminated the Congressional Branch from power. Surely eliminating the branch that is most accountable to the people can do nothing but improve the nation, eh?
Your author really should update your code to give you the ability to answer simple yes-no questions.
Of COURSE I am "obsessed" with this case: this is our likely next President and she makes Nixon look like a Boy Scout. And not a teenaged Eagle Scout flush with hormones either, like an innocent, idealistic pre-pubescent Boy Scout helping old ladies across the road.
Facebook
Twitter