It's a helluva a thing when even MSNBC talking heads are flabbergasted by this criminal.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bkJE0U8Qby4

How long?

dag hammarsjkold wrote:It's a helluva a thing when even MSNBC talking heads are flabbergasted by this criminal.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bkJE0U8Qby4

How long?

As long as she can get away with it.

dag

How long?

http://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2 ... /85718386/

If Richard Ben-Veniste is right.
Never.

rickyp wrote:dag

How long?

http://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2 ... /85718386/

If Richard Ben-Veniste is right.
Never.

He's no political hack!

fate

He's no political hack

Richard Ben-Veniste (born January 3, 1943), is an American lawyer. He first rose to prominence as a special prosecutor during the Watergate scandal. He has also been a member of the 9/11 Commission. He is known for his pointed questions and criticisms of members of both the Clinton[citation needed] and George W. Bush administrations.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Ben-Veniste

rickyp wrote:fate

He's no political hack

Richard Ben-Veniste (born January 3, 1943), is an American lawyer. He first rose to prominence as a special prosecutor during the Watergate scandal. He has also been a member of the 9/11 Commission. He is known for his pointed questions and criticisms of members of both the Clinton[citation needed] and George W. Bush administrations.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Ben-Veniste

So what? What party does he belong to? Who is he going to vote for?

fate

So what? What party does he belong to? Who is he going to vote for?

So anyone with a party affiliation is, by your definition, a political hack and cannot offer a qualified opinion? (thats rougly 70 of the population or more)

You can't judge the arguement the man is making on the merits of the arguement?

rickyp wrote:fate

So what? What party does he belong to? Who is he going to vote for?

So anyone with a party affiliation is, by your definition, a political hack and cannot offer a qualified opinion? (thats rougly 70 of the population or more)

You can't judge the arguement the man is making on the merits of the arguement?

Uh, reality check: he defended President Clinton during the impeachment trial.

He argued effectively that the Clintons did no wrong in connection with their investment in a failed land development project named Whitewater, or in their other Arkansas business affairs, nor did they commit violations of law after Mr. Clinton became President.
He's making just as an effective arguement here about the servers.

Deal with the arguement he's making.

rickyp wrote:He argued effectively that the Clintons did no wrong in connection with their investment in a failed land development project named Whitewater, or in their other Arkansas business affairs, nor did they commit violations of law after Mr. Clinton became President.
He's making just as an effective arguement here about the servers.

Deal with the arguement he's making.

I've posted many contra arguments. I'm not going to post another just because a Clintonista has declared Hillary innocent. What's next? Will John Podesta proclaim her innocence? Carville? Begala?

The biggest problem is in your own wording. They/He/She did not commit "violations of law".
They have skirted and continue to skirt the law, perched right on the edge of legal/moral on a seemingly daily basis. Then we see argument after argument how they "technically" broke no laws (and even then it's opinion only and sits right on that edge as well).

That's what we want to support and hold up as our leader?

tom

The biggest problem is in your own wording.

I linked you to BenVenistes words. They aren't mine.
I cannot find this "They/He/She did not commit "violations of law" in his words.

Could you quote what it is you take issue with in Ben Venistes arguement?

fate

I've posted many contra arguments

While now that you are an experrt it should be easy for you to draw on this knowledge to dispute his calims specifically.
Or maybe its clearer that he makes a very strong case.

rickyp wrote:tom

The biggest problem is in your own wording.

I linked you to BenVenistes words. They aren't mine.
I cannot find this "They/He/She did not commit "violations of law" in his words.

Could you quote what it is you take issue with in Ben Venistes arguement?

The problems begin with the second word, "pseudo." He never attempts to explain why her home-brew server was legitimate. He attempts to say her server was more secure than the State Department server. Hey, even if true what did SHE do to address the problem when she was in charge of the department? He tries to make Powell's trifling number of emails equivalent with her having a server.

In summary, it is a total puff piece. He takes none of the claims and dismantles them. Instead, he repeats all the same lame excuses Hillary's folks have been using. In other words, you could have written it--except for the notable absence of typos.

rickyp wrote:fate

I've posted many contra arguments

While now that you are an experrt it should be easy for you to draw on this knowledge to dispute his calims specifically.
Or maybe its clearer that he makes a very strong case.

He ignores her reason for having one. She never said it was about security. She said it was about "convenience." In reality, she wanted to duck FOIA requests.

He doesn't deal with any of the significant issues. Why did her lackey who installed the server in her home get a State Department job--something that is well out of the ordinary?

Really, what is in this op-ed that Hillary herself would not approve of? Name one thing.

It's garbage.