I heard some of the experts predict that Hilary will just stay under the radar, run the clock, and hope the media circles the wagons around her. In this email case, I'm not sure I agree the media will let it slide that easy.
Of all the things that might rankle the media, stifling the free flow of information would probably be near the top of the list.
Which experts. Source, please.
I heard some of the experts predict that Hilary will just stay under the radar, run the clock, and hope the media circles the wagons around her. In this email case, I'm not sure I agree the media will let it slide that easy.
Of all the things that might rankle the media, stifling the free flow of information would probably be near the top of the list.
Meh this is a another bs GOP witch hunt.
The GOP is grasping at straws looking for dirty laundry to hang on Hillary. Considering the media circus they made of Benghazi only to have a GOP committee say there was nothing there I am surprised the crack GOP investigators took so long to find out she had a private e-mail account.
Mark my words this will amount to nothing and will be gone by the time she officially announces her candidacy.
Top democrat Senator reveals angst in the party over hillary’s criminal activity:
Feinstein Calls on Hillary Clinton to ‘Come out’ over Emails
Associated Press - by Joel B. Pollak8 Mar 2015
On Sunday morning’s edition of Meet the Press, Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) called on Hillary Clinton to “come out” with the truth about her emails after it emerged last week that she had used a private email address for all of her correspondence as Secretary of State, against department policy.
Her emails were on a private account, in a private Internet domain whose server was based in the Clintons’ residence in Chappaqua, New York, raising questions of legality and transparency.
“What would you like Secretary Clinton to do to clear this up?” host Chuck Todd asked Feinstein, a key figure on the Senate Intelligence Committee.
“Actually, what I would like is for her to come forward and say just what the situation is. Because she is the pre-eminent political figure right now. She is the leading candidate–whether it be Republican or Democrat00to be the next president. And I think that she needs to step up, and come out, and state exactly what the situation is.”
“I think from this point on, the silence is going to hurt her,” Feinstein concluded.
The scandal has drawn rare attention from the Beltway media, which is usually inclined to ignore controversy around Hillary Clinton–largely giving her a pass in the Benghazi scandal, for example. Though many predict that Hillary Clinton will escape this scandal, as she has escaped so many in the past, some–like Mark Halperin of Time magazine–say that Clinton is no longer the presidential frontrunner.
Top democrat Senator reveals angst in the party over hillary’s criminal activity:
Feinstein Calls on Hillary Clinton to ‘Come out’ over Emails
Associated Press - by Joel B. Pollak8 Mar 2015
On Sunday morning’s edition of Meet the Press, Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) called on Hillary Clinton to “come out” with the truth about her emails after it emerged last week that she had used a private email address for all of her correspondence as Secretary of State, against department policy.
Her emails were on a private account, in a private Internet domain whose server was based in the Clintons’ residence in Chappaqua, New York, raising questions of legality and transparency.
“What would you like Secretary Clinton to do to clear this up?” host Chuck Todd asked Feinstein, a key figure on the Senate Intelligence Committee.
“Actually, what I would like is for her to come forward and say just what the situation is. Because she is the pre-eminent political figure right now. She is the leading candidate–whether it be Republican or Democrat00to be the next president. And I think that she needs to step up, and come out, and state exactly what the situation is.”
“I think from this point on, the silence is going to hurt her,” Feinstein concluded.
The scandal has drawn rare attention from the Beltway media, which is usually inclined to ignore controversy around Hillary Clinton–largely giving her a pass in the Benghazi scandal, for example. Though many predict that Hillary Clinton will escape this scandal, as she has escaped so many in the past, some–like Mark Halperin of Time magazine–say that Clinton is no longer the presidential frontrunner.
First, Pollak doesn't work for AP. He is a political correspondent for Breitbart, which is where you copied and pasted this report. Which explains why you didn't post the link. which means you knew this was a conservative piece, not mainstream as you imply.
[Edited on 3/8/2015 by jkeller]
Top democrat Senator reveals angst in the party over hillary’s criminal activity:
Feinstein Calls on Hillary Clinton to ‘Come out’ over Emails
Associated Press - by Joel B. Pollak8 Mar 2015
On Sunday morning’s edition of Meet the Press, Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) called on Hillary Clinton to “come out” with the truth about her emails after it emerged last week that she had used a private email address for all of her correspondence as Secretary of State, against department policy.
Her emails were on a private account, in a private Internet domain whose server was based in the Clintons’ residence in Chappaqua, New York, raising questions of legality and transparency.
“What would you like Secretary Clinton to do to clear this up?” host Chuck Todd asked Feinstein, a key figure on the Senate Intelligence Committee.
“Actually, what I would like is for her to come forward and say just what the situation is. Because she is the pre-eminent political figure right now. She is the leading candidate–whether it be Republican or Democrat00to be the next president. And I think that she needs to step up, and come out, and state exactly what the situation is.”
“I think from this point on, the silence is going to hurt her,” Feinstein concluded.
The scandal has drawn rare attention from the Beltway media, which is usually inclined to ignore controversy around Hillary Clinton–largely giving her a pass in the Benghazi scandal, for example. Though many predict that Hillary Clinton will escape this scandal, as she has escaped so many in the past, some–like Mark Halperin of Time magazine–say that Clinton is no longer the presidential frontrunner.
First, Pollak doesn't work for AP. He is a political correspondent for Breitbart, which is where you copied and pasted this report. Which explains why you didn't post the link. which means you knew this was a conservative piece, not mainstream as you imply.
[Edited on 3/8/2015 by jkeller]
___________________________________________
The piece was written by and published by The Associated Press
Breitbart simply quoted the AP which why they credited The AP.
Nice try dumbass.
The corruption and criminal activity of the hillary campaign is obvious and rampant.
The liberals here of course say no; that it is all Muleman and Fox News.
The corruption and criminal activity of the hillary campaign was exposed by the left-wing media but the liberals here say no; that it is all Muleman and Fox News.
Senior members of the democratic party call for hillary to come out and explain the corruption and criminal activity her campaign.
But the liberals here say no; that it is all Muleman and Fox News.
All the while this is going on the 2016 Presidential Campaigns are ramping up and the Republicans have a deep bench out making their positions clear for the American voters the democrats, having gone all in for hillary are realizing they have nothing to offer.
Nobody to run for their party. No policy positions to state.
Please keep it up.
It is apparent the liberals cannot defend hillary’s corruption and criminal activity but they are all in for hillary!
Denial is a bitch ain’t it?
Top democrat Senator reveals angst in the party over hillary’s criminal activity:
Feinstein Calls on Hillary Clinton to ‘Come out’ over Emails
Associated Press - by Joel B. Pollak8 Mar 2015
On Sunday morning’s edition of Meet the Press, Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) called on Hillary Clinton to “come out” with the truth about her emails after it emerged last week that she had used a private email address for all of her correspondence as Secretary of State, against department policy.
Her emails were on a private account, in a private Internet domain whose server was based in the Clintons’ residence in Chappaqua, New York, raising questions of legality and transparency.
“What would you like Secretary Clinton to do to clear this up?” host Chuck Todd asked Feinstein, a key figure on the Senate Intelligence Committee.
“Actually, what I would like is for her to come forward and say just what the situation is. Because she is the pre-eminent political figure right now. She is the leading candidate–whether it be Republican or Democrat00to be the next president. And I think that she needs to step up, and come out, and state exactly what the situation is.”
“I think from this point on, the silence is going to hurt her,” Feinstein concluded.
The scandal has drawn rare attention from the Beltway media, which is usually inclined to ignore controversy around Hillary Clinton–largely giving her a pass in the Benghazi scandal, for example. Though many predict that Hillary Clinton will escape this scandal, as she has escaped so many in the past, some–like Mark Halperin of Time magazine–say that Clinton is no longer the presidential frontrunner.
Feinstein is just on a witch hunt, that's all.
I heard some of the experts predict that Hilary will just stay under the radar, run the clock, and hope the media circles the wagons around her. In this email case, I'm not sure I agree the media will let it slide that easy.
Of all the things that might rankle the media, stifling the free flow of information would probably be near the top of the list.
Meh this is a another bs GOP witch hunt.
The GOP is grasping at straws looking for dirty laundry to hang on Hillary. Considering the media circus they made of Benghazi only to have a GOP committee say there was nothing there I am surprised the crack GOP investigators took so long to find out she had a private e-mail account.
Mark my words this will amount to nothing and will be gone by the time she officially announces her candidacy.
Right, as long as she gets away with it no big deal. That's all that matters. I think Hillary should do whatever she wants. As long as she doesn't get caught who does it hurt?
Top democrat Senator reveals angst in the party over hillary’s criminal activity:
Feinstein Calls on Hillary Clinton to ‘Come out’ over Emails
Associated Press - by Joel B. Pollak8 Mar 2015
On Sunday morning’s edition of Meet the Press, Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) called on Hillary Clinton to “come out” with the truth about her emails after it emerged last week that she had used a private email address for all of her correspondence as Secretary of State, against department policy.
Her emails were on a private account, in a private Internet domain whose server was based in the Clintons’ residence in Chappaqua, New York, raising questions of legality and transparency.
“What would you like Secretary Clinton to do to clear this up?” host Chuck Todd asked Feinstein, a key figure on the Senate Intelligence Committee.
“Actually, what I would like is for her to come forward and say just what the situation is. Because she is the pre-eminent political figure right now. She is the leading candidate–whether it be Republican or Democrat00to be the next president. And I think that she needs to step up, and come out, and state exactly what the situation is.”
“I think from this point on, the silence is going to hurt her,” Feinstein concluded.
The scandal has drawn rare attention from the Beltway media, which is usually inclined to ignore controversy around Hillary Clinton–largely giving her a pass in the Benghazi scandal, for example. Though many predict that Hillary Clinton will escape this scandal, as she has escaped so many in the past, some–like Mark Halperin of Time magazine–say that Clinton is no longer the presidential frontrunner.
First, Pollak doesn't work for AP. He is a political correspondent for Breitbart, which is where you copied and pasted this report. Which explains why you didn't post the link. which means you knew this was a conservative piece, not mainstream as you imply.
[Edited on 3/8/2015 by jkeller]
___________________________________________
The piece was written by and published by The Associated Press
Breitbart simply quoted the AP which why they credited The AP.Nice try dumbass.
Wrong. Pollack works for Breitbart. He wrote the piece for Breitbart. Nowhere does Breitbart say they got the piece from the AP. If you check, you would see the Pollak writes many hatchet pieces for Breitbart. Nice try. Actually no, it was a feeble try.
I heard some of the experts predict that Hilary will just stay under the radar, run the clock, and hope the media circles the wagons around her. In this email case, I'm not sure I agree the media will let it slide that easy.
Of all the things that might rankle the media, stifling the free flow of information would probably be near the top of the list.
Meh this is a another bs GOP witch hunt.
The GOP is grasping at straws looking for dirty laundry to hang on Hillary. Considering the media circus they made of Benghazi only to have a GOP committee say there was nothing there I am surprised the crack GOP investigators took so long to find out she had a private e-mail account.
Mark my words this will amount to nothing and will be gone by the time she officially announces her candidacy.
Right, as long as she gets away with it no big deal. That's all that matters. I think Hillary should do whatever she wants. As long as she doesn't get caught who does it hurt?
Nobody said that. You come to some far out conclusions that nobody around here implies.
[Edited on 3/8/2015 by jkeller]
I heard some of the experts predict that Hilary will just stay under the radar, run the clock, and hope the media circles the wagons around her. In this email case, I'm not sure I agree the media will let it slide that easy.
Of all the things that might rankle the media, stifling the free flow of information would probably be near the top of the list.
Meh this is a another bs GOP witch hunt.
The GOP is grasping at straws looking for dirty laundry to hang on Hillary. Considering the media circus they made of Benghazi only to have a GOP committee say there was nothing there I am surprised the crack GOP investigators took so long to find out she had a private e-mail account.
Mark my words this will amount to nothing and will be gone by the time she officially announces her candidacy.
Right, as long as she gets away with it no big deal. That's all that matters. I think Hillary should do whatever she wants. As long as she doesn't get caught who does it hurt?
Nobody said that. You come to some far out conclusions that nobody around here implies.
[Edited on 3/8/2015 by jkeller]
alloak doesn't get that the only reason Hillary does what she wants is so she can piss off a bunch of right wing / conservative posters on a band's website forum. Other than that, life would be boring & there would be no reason for her to run for office.
Top democrat Senator reveals angst in the party over hillary’s criminal activity:
Feinstein Calls on Hillary Clinton to ‘Come out’ over Emails
Associated Press - by Joel B. Pollak8 Mar 2015
On Sunday morning’s edition of Meet the Press, Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) called on Hillary Clinton to “come out” with the truth about her emails after it emerged last week that she had used a private email address for all of her correspondence as Secretary of State, against department policy.
Her emails were on a private account, in a private Internet domain whose server was based in the Clintons’ residence in Chappaqua, New York, raising questions of legality and transparency.
“What would you like Secretary Clinton to do to clear this up?” host Chuck Todd asked Feinstein, a key figure on the Senate Intelligence Committee.
“Actually, what I would like is for her to come forward and say just what the situation is. Because she is the pre-eminent political figure right now. She is the leading candidate–whether it be Republican or Democrat00to be the next president. And I think that she needs to step up, and come out, and state exactly what the situation is.”
“I think from this point on, the silence is going to hurt her,” Feinstein concluded.
The scandal has drawn rare attention from the Beltway media, which is usually inclined to ignore controversy around Hillary Clinton–largely giving her a pass in the Benghazi scandal, for example. Though many predict that Hillary Clinton will escape this scandal, as she has escaped so many in the past, some–like Mark Halperin of Time magazine–say that Clinton is no longer the presidential frontrunner.
First, Pollak doesn't work for AP. He is a political correspondent for Breitbart, which is where you copied and pasted this report. Which explains why you didn't post the link. which means you knew this was a conservative piece, not mainstream as you imply.
[Edited on 3/8/2015 by jkeller]
___________________________________________
The piece was written by and published by The Associated Press
Breitbart simply quoted the AP which why they credited The AP.Nice try dumbass.
Wrong. Pollack works for Breitbart. He wrote the piece for Breitbart. Nowhere does Breitbart say they got the piece from the AP. If you check, you would see the Pollak writes many hatchet pieces for Breitbart. Nice try. Actually no, it was a feeble try.
_______________________________________________________________
Wrong.
The A/P credit is right in the by line just as it is in all pieces run in newspapers and internet sites.
The original piece is also in the A/P wire services feed.
Anyone can also just watch the video on NBC News website of this morning's Meet the Press.
[Edited on 3/9/2015 by Muleman1994]
So, the liberals here are saying that N.Y. Times, CBS News, The Washington Post and The Associated Press have all entered into a vast right-wing conspiracy.
Everyone is lying.
Top democrat Senator reveals angst in the party over hillary’s criminal activity:
Feinstein Calls on Hillary Clinton to ‘Come out’ over Emails
Associated Press - by Joel B. Pollak8 Mar 2015
On Sunday morning’s edition of Meet the Press, Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) called on Hillary Clinton to “come out” with the truth about her emails after it emerged last week that she had used a private email address for all of her correspondence as Secretary of State, against department policy.
Her emails were on a private account, in a private Internet domain whose server was based in the Clintons’ residence in Chappaqua, New York, raising questions of legality and transparency.
“What would you like Secretary Clinton to do to clear this up?” host Chuck Todd asked Feinstein, a key figure on the Senate Intelligence Committee.
“Actually, what I would like is for her to come forward and say just what the situation is. Because she is the pre-eminent political figure right now. She is the leading candidate–whether it be Republican or Democrat00to be the next president. And I think that she needs to step up, and come out, and state exactly what the situation is.”
“I think from this point on, the silence is going to hurt her,” Feinstein concluded.
The scandal has drawn rare attention from the Beltway media, which is usually inclined to ignore controversy around Hillary Clinton–largely giving her a pass in the Benghazi scandal, for example. Though many predict that Hillary Clinton will escape this scandal, as she has escaped so many in the past, some–like Mark Halperin of Time magazine–say that Clinton is no longer the presidential frontrunner.
First, Pollak doesn't work for AP. He is a political correspondent for Breitbart, which is where you copied and pasted this report. Which explains why you didn't post the link. which means you knew this was a conservative piece, not mainstream as you imply.
[Edited on 3/8/2015 by jkeller]
___________________________________________
The piece was written by and published by The Associated Press
Breitbart simply quoted the AP which why they credited The AP.Nice try dumbass.
Wrong. Pollack works for Breitbart. He wrote the piece for Breitbart. Nowhere does Breitbart say they got the piece from the AP. If you check, you would see the Pollak writes many hatchet pieces for Breitbart. Nice try. Actually no, it was a feeble try.
_______________________________________________________________
Wrong.
The A/P credit is right in the by line just as it is in all pieces run in newspapers and internet sites.
The original piece is also in the A/P wire services feed.
Who does Pollak work for. Hint: He fancies himself a leader of the Tea Party who has lost the elections he has run in. Hint: He doesn't work for AP. Hint: Go to this link http://www.breitbart.com/author/joel-b-pollak/ and tell me who Pollak writes for. And then give me the link where you found that the article is from the AP. There, I did your research for you. Your turn.
So, the liberals here are saying that N.Y. Times, CBS News, The Washington Post and The Associated Press have all entered into a vast right-wing conspiracy.
Everyone is lying.
Not everyone. Just you. 😛
So, the liberals here are saying that N.Y. Times, CBS News, The Washington Post and The Associated Press have all entered into a vast right-wing conspiracy.
Everyone is lying.
Not everyone. Just you. 😛
____________________________________________________________________
Still can't do basic research eh?
Since Keller is too stupid to look up accurate information, here is the links to the video of Sen. Feinstein calling out Hillary:
http://www.nbcnews.com/meet-the-press/
Watch the liberals now claim the Breitbart edited the video and slipped it into NBC News.
Since Keller is too stupid to look up accurate information, here is the links to the video of Sen. Feinstein calling out Hillary:
http://www.nbcnews.com/meet-the-press/
Watch the liberals now claim the Breitbart edited the video and slipped it into NBC News.
Pay attention, genius. I never said that Feinstein didn't say that. I said you made a weak attempt to post this as a mainstream news piece from the AP. After reading the last paragraph I knew it was an opinion piece from a right wing site. Here is what I posted.
First, Pollak doesn't work for AP. He is a political correspondent for Breitbart, which is where you copied and pasted this report. Which explains why you didn't post the link. which means you knew this was a conservative piece, not mainstream as you imply.
Where did I do anything except point out that you lied about the source. Hell, you have lied about everything in this thread.
Pace yourself keller, its going to be a long road having to carry water for the Clintons. This is only the begining. Nothing from Hills defenders even made sense last week relating to a plausible explanation. It would have been better to just go ahead and admit it was an attempt to create a shield in a high level job to control any accountability.
Pace yourself keller, its going to be a long road having to carry water for the Clintons. This is only the begining. Nothing from Hills defenders even made sense last week relating to a plausible explanation. It would have been better to just go ahead and admit it was an attempt to create a shield in a high level job to control any accountability.
Not much choice. They're all in on Hillary and now must defend her to the hilt. I'm glad
I don't have to. Her sleazy practices around files and records goes back to Watergate, when
she was fired for fraud and ethics violations.
Pace yourself keller, its going to be a long road having to carry water for the Clintons. This is only the begining. Nothing from Hills defenders even made sense last week relating to a plausible explanation. It would have been better to just go ahead and admit it was an attempt to create a shield in a high level job to control any accountability.
Not much choice. They're all in on Hillary and now must defend her to the hilt. I'm glad
I don't have to. Her sleazy practices around files and records goes back to Watergate, when
she was fired for fraud and ethics violations.
Please show me where I "carried water" or am "all in" on Hillary.
Her sleazy practices around files and records goes back to Watergate, when
she was fired for fraud and ethics violations.
Tsk, tsk, tsk... lying in the internet age Alloak isn't a good idea. Why do you make outrageous statements before googling your claim? Why do conservatives lie to make their cases? It happens over and over and yet you want me to be upset over emailgate, benghazigate, etc... when all I have to go on is a bunch of lying right wing spew.
I have plenty of real reasons not to vote for Hillary. Can't you do better than lying?
Truth or Fiction says this:
http://www.truthorfiction.com/rumors/c/clinton-watergate.htm#.VP3cNEKxX2k
The Truth:
It’s true that Hillary Clinton’s ex-boss has accused her of being a “liar” and “unethical” during the House Judiciary Committee’s impeachment inquiry into Watergate, but claims that she was fired for those reasons are false.
Claims that Hillary Clinton had been fired from the impeachment inquiry first went viral during her 2008 presidential bid. A column written by Dan Calabrese, the founder of Northstar Writers Group, appeared in countless forwarded emails, and the eRumor was born.
The column was inspired by statements made by Jerry Zeifman, a Democrat who served as counsel and chief of staff for the House Judiciary Committee during the Watergate investigation. Zeifman’s book, “Hillary’s Pursuit of Power,” and comments that he made on his website, which is no longer active, have been critical of Hillary Rodham Clinton’s actions during the Watergate investigation, and in the years that followed.
Jerry Zeifman said he supervised Hillary Rodham Clinton as she worked on the team that worked on the Watergate impeachment inquiry, and that during the investigation Hillary Clinton had "...engaged in a variety of self-serving, unethical practices in violation of House rules."
Specifically, Jerry Zeifman said Hillary Rodham Clinton and others wanted Richard Nixon to remain in office so Democratic Senator Ted Kennedy would have a better chance of being elected president. Zeifman said a young lawyer who shared an office with Clinton came to him in August of 1974 to apologize that he and Clinton had lied to him. The lawyer, John Labovitz, is quoted as saying that he was dismayed with "...her erroneous legal opinions and efforts to deny Nixon representation by counsel — as well as an unwillingness to investigate Nixon."
Jerry Zeifman also said that Hillary Rodham Clinton regularly consulted with Ted Kennedy's chief political strategist, which was a violation of House rules. Zeifman said in addition to helping Ted Kennedy win the presidency, Democrats also didn't want Nixon to face an impeachment trial because they feared he might bring up abuses of office by President John Kennedy as part of his defense.But while Jerry Zeifman has been consistent in his criticism of Hillary Rodham Clinton’s work on the Watergate investigation, circumstances surrounding her termination are less clear. In a 1999 interview with the Scripps Howard News Service, Zeifman said he didn’t have the power to fire Clinton, or else he would have:
“Zeifman does not have flattering memories of Rodham’s work on the committee. ‘If I had the power to fire her, I would have fired her,’ he said.
Zeifman said Rodham sparked a bitter battle among Democrats by recommending the Judiciary Committee deny Nixon’s lawyers the right to attend the closed-door meetings.
‘Can you imagine that? This was a committee of lawyers and members of the bar, and she was saying the committee should deny the president representation,’ he said.After a lengthy behind-the-scenes debate, Zeifman said the committee decided Nixon’s lawyers could attend.”
In an interview on the Neal Boortz Show in 2008, Jerry Zeifman altered his claim about Hillary’s termination from the Watergate investigation:
“Well, let me put it this way: I terminated her, along with some other staff members who were — were no longer needed, and advised her that I would not — could not — recommend her for any further positions.”
When pressed, Zeifman said he couldn’t recommend Hillary Rodham Clinton for future positions, “Because of her unethical conduct.” Despite that, however, Clinton was terminated because she was “no longer needed” — not because she had lied, according to Zeifman’s own account.
But in a 2008 column Zeifman wrote, “My own reaction was of regret, when I terminated her employment on the Nixon impeachment staff, I had not reported her unethical practices to the appropriate bar associations.”
In 2008, Hillary Clinton’s presidential campaign replied to Zeifman’s claims directly by saying, “In a column circulating on the Internet Jerry Zeifman alleges that Hillary was fired from her job on the House Judiciary Committee in the 1970s. This is false. Hillary was not fired.” That website has since been taken offline.
Not much choice. They're all in on Hillary and now must defend her to the hilt. I'm glad
I don't have to. Her sleazy practices around files and records goes back to Watergate, when
she was fired for fraud and ethics violations.
Hillary is not the ideal candidate by any stretch but for me she is better than any alternative the GOP seems to be able to offer at this point.
Ideally I would love to see Elizabeth Warren run and win as I identify with her ideals and I believe she cares about the average Joe but I think she is too progressive for America right now and Hillary has a better chance of winning against the parade of mediocre GOP opponents.
Pace yourself keller, its going to be a long road having to carry water for the Clintons. This is only the begining. Nothing from Hills defenders even made sense last week relating to a plausible explanation. It would have been better to just go ahead and admit it was an attempt to create a shield in a high level job to control any accountability.
Not much choice. They're all in on Hillary and now must defend her to the hilt. I'm glad
I don't have to. Her sleazy practices around files and records goes back to Watergate, when
she was fired for fraud and ethics violations.Please show me where I "carried water" or am "all in" on Hillary.
No idea who he is talking about, but must be people he knows outside of this forum because no one here is "all in" on her as far as I can tell.
Clinton silence on email controversy stoking tensions with Dems, White House
Published March 09, 2015
Top Democrats: It’s time for Hillary Clinton to come clean
The controversy over Hillary Clinton's private email use is stoking tensions between her camp and fellow Democrats -- even the White House -- as some urge the former secretary of state to come forward and address the controversy publicly.
The Wall Street Journal reported Monday that President Obama's aides are privately voicing frustration that they've been left to defend her email practices, with Clinton so far saying very little. Clinton's only personal response to date has been a late-night tweet last week in which she said she's asked the State Department to make her emails public.
Even Obama, in an interview on CBS, addressed the controversy.
One senior administration official told the Journal that Obama's team will not "own" this issue.
"If they screwed up on the emails, if we find out they skipped over her emails . . . then that will be a problem for them, it'll be a scandal. But it's not one that we'll own," the official reportedly said.
Meanwhile, Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., spoke out on NBC's "Meet the Press," saying Clinton "needs to step up and come out and state exactly what the situation is."
She added that from "this point on, the silence is going to hurt her."
Feinstein is the first major Democrat to urge Clinton to share details of the account's contents, some of which have been subpoenaed by a special House committee investigating the 2012 attack on the U.S. Consulate in Benghazi, Libya.
Clinton attended an event in New York City on Monday, joining her daughter Chelsea and Gates Foundation Co-Chairwoman Melinda Gates for the release of a report on women's progress internationally. So far, she has not addressed the email issue there.
Republicans, meanwhile, are turning up the heat.
Rep. Trey Gowdy, R-S.C., chairman of the Benghazi committee, told CBS' "Face the Nation" "there are gaps of months and months and months" in the emails the committee had previously received. "It's not up to Secretary Clinton to decide what's a public record and what's not," Gowdy said.
"We're not entitled to everything," Gowdy continued. "I don't want everything. I just want everything related to Libya and Benghazi."
On CNN's "State of the Union, Rep. Darrell Issa, R-Calif., said the subpoena issued by Gowdy's committee ensures that "it will be a crime if she knowingly withholds documents pursuant to subpoena."
For his part, Obama said Sunday he first learned of Clinton's private account through news reports. He went on to praise Clinton for requesting the release of the 55,000 pages of email by the State Department, called her "an outstanding public servant" and defended his administration's record on transparency.
Clinton's private email use was first reported by the New York Times last Monday. Though her representatives say no laws were broken, her practice of exclusively using personal email appeared to at least run against administration guidelines - including State Department guidelines - advising officials to use the official, government system.
The Associated Press contributed to this report.
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pace yourself keller, its going to be a long road having to carry water for the Clintons. This is only the begining. Nothing from Hills defenders even made sense last week relating to a plausible explanation. It would have been better to just go ahead and admit it was an attempt to create a shield in a high level job to control any accountability.--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Not much choice. They're all in on Hillary and now must defend her to the hilt. I'm glad
I don't have to. Her sleazy practices around files and records goes back to Watergate, when
she was fired for fraud and ethics violations.
This is too funny. The attacks from the right have started before she even announces anything. For the past 20-some odd years, I never heard a single peep out of conservatives about Hillary Clinton. She was not relevant, nor was she a thought. All of a sudden, in 2015, conservatives hate her and start bashing her......gee, I wonder why.
It's pretty easy to defend this so-called "scandal".......
It would have been better to just go ahead and admit it was an attempt to create a shield in a high level job to control any accountability.
Ding ding ding! We have a winner Johnny! Hillary should say, "yes, I did send a buch of work-related emails using my gmail account to gain some extra privacy. yes, it was wrong, and I apologize. I accept whatever punishment may come my way. Now, back to the real issues."
This is as silly as Bridge-gate and the ridiculous attempts to smear Christie.....or Romney's 1% quote. Even worse was the smear around Chrisite sitting in the Cowboys box, as if that makes him some sort of traitor to the people of NJ. Please. If a voter changes his mind on a politician because of stupid sh*t like bridge-gate, or liking the opposing team, or using gmail, then that person is a moron.
If you go in for a job interview, and you start bashing the competition and insulting them, do you think the company would hire you? If not, then why do we allow our politicians to behave this way when campaigning for their job? Both sides do it and it's sickening. A person who displays those types of characteristics shouldn't be leading anything.
If Hillary does indeed win, what will that say about the Republicans, who, for the 3rd time in a row, will have lost to 2 inexperienced failures like Obama and Hillary? It must be all those stupid low-info American voters.
Her sleazy practices around files and records goes back to Watergate, when
she was fired for fraud and ethics violations.Tsk, tsk, tsk... lying in the internet age Alloak isn't a good idea. Why do you make outrageous statements before googling your claim?
Thanks for the tip, but a google search DID reveal she was fired for fraud and ethics violations. In the internet age, I guess what to believe just depends on the source. In Hillary's case, her own track record makes it a fairly easy choice. She's pretty slimy.
Pace yourself keller, its going to be a long road having to carry water for the Clintons. This is only the begining. Nothing from Hills defenders even made sense last week relating to a plausible explanation. It would have been better to just go ahead and admit it was an attempt to create a shield in a high level job to control any accountability.
Not much choice. They're all in on Hillary and now must defend her to the hilt. I'm glad
I don't have to. Her sleazy practices around files and records goes back to Watergate, when
she was fired for fraud and ethics violations.Please show me where I "carried water" or am "all in" on Hillary.
No idea who he is talking about, but must be people he knows outside of this forum because no one here is "all in" on her as far as I can tell.
Who's the alternative? Nobody?
Hillary is not the ideal candidate by any stretch but for me she is better than any alternative the GOP seems to be able to offer at this point.
Why isn't she the ideal candidate? Just curious.
[Edited on 3/10/2015 by alloak41]
