Fair enough. He’s still a doodyhead though haha. He also is my personal replacement for Cantor as “most punchable face in Congress”.
YES! That would be AWESOME.
4 Likes
It has to be all about air-time, to continue to keep Clinton’s “Untrustworthy” meme alive. They’ve lost the battle and are so pissed about it that they will make political hay out of anything they can.
2 Likes
ChafedPutz thinks he’s so tough…LOL!
We know they’ll never hold hearings on Petraeus, the horse has fled and he stands convicted of doing much more than HRC ever did. BTW Comey, if 110 emails out of 50 thousand or so constitutes “etrely reckless” behavior, what if were 220? Extremely extremely reckless? True recklessness was you,Comey, injecting what you knew to highly charged political commentary into a situation in a manner that was well beyond S.O.P for your job. THAT, is extremely reckless and the only reason you still hold your job today is because the gop goons that are bitching about you now would create 10 times the fuss if you were axed,
2 Likes
I think it is very important that Democrats return the favor. Every Republican criminal should be hauled up and asked to testify in Congress, the Senate and investigated by the FBI, ATF and the IRS.
The Republicans have been investigating the Clintons for decades as part of their crusade. The Republicans as part of their Southern strategy have investigated and driven out of office every Cabinet member of color appointed by a Democratic president.
Comey hands the GOP a mountain of ammo to use against HRC’s credibility. They should be rejoice. Instead they turn on Comey in preference of conspiracy theories and the pipe dream of an HRC indictment. I can only conclude that GOP congresscritters don’t care nearly as much about defeating Clinton as they do fundraising for their own reelections. Sounds like a losing gambit to me. Not that I’m complaining. 
1 Like
Petraeus should be in prison. No question about it.
That’s definitely their motivation. but I still don’t understand how they can get away with it. This last Benghazi committee took, what, 2 years and $7 million, and the results were absolutely negligible. Why can’t someone stop these Repugs from wasting time and money on personal partisan witch hunts? It’s so blatantly conspiratorial.
3 Likes
Sorry to have to tell you this, but she can look forward to that AFTER she becomes President as well. A GOP House will run endless investigations into Hillary the entire time she is in office, including but not limited to, her handling of emails at State.
Issa made the statement yesterday that he wants a government shutdown until Hillary is charged. That sort of “thinking” won’t go away after her inauguration.
You asked for a hearing on General Petraeus and how that was dealt with: you got it," Chaffetz said.
Sure we will hold a hearing on General Petraeus. Oh when? UHM…
2 Likes
If it is true, not only would be amazing but, it will send all the racist tea baggers and their ilk off the cliff while muttering out loud
“Another black man in power? But, but, we just got rid of that fascist Kenyan Muslim… Woe is me, will it ever end”
1 Like
They should be pissed at themselves for the presidential nominee they have, created by their racist and intransigent climate of the last 7 plus years.
1 Like
Issa’s a moron loudmouth, and enough people know it that his clout has been severely curtailed.
I don’t think it will be so easy to drag a sitting President in front of a committee when there has already been a long investigation into the matter. If there had never been a definitive investigation, then, yeah, it would be a matter of national interest. But piggybacking on a 2-year FBI investigation is another matter. If it were that simple to drag a sitting Prez in front of Congress, the Repugs would have had Obama up in front of committees throughout the last 2 terms.
Grassley is another…he is demanding that the FBI turn over all their evidence, including ALL of her emails, so the Senate can conduct a series of leaks…err, I mean their own investigation.
I agree that getting her in front of the investigating committee is one thing, but there will most definitely be a continuous parade of Congressional “investigations” from the day she takes the oath till the day she leaves. Its what the GOP does.
1 Like
" . . . so the Senate can conduct a series of leaks…err, I mean their own investigation."
Classic.
No surprise here. Partisan Cummings has no problem supporting anyone who commits a crime as long as they have a “D” behind their name.
You got to love how Comey says Hillary has broken the law but she did not intend to or she might have been ignorant to the laws so she should not be held accountable.
That would not be the case for the rest of us.
It’s a shame you have such trouble understanding Comey’s explanation. He never said Clinton broke the law. Here’s the applicable quote: “Although we did not find clear evidence that Secretary Clinton or her colleagues intended to violate laws governing the handling of classified information, there is evidence that they were extremely careless in their handling of very sensitive, highly classified information.” Please point out the part where he says she “broke the law.” Or maybe you can just direct me to your latest delusion.
And he specifically said it would be an injustice to indict her for the mistakes made in this case simply because of her celebrity. That part apparently flew right over your head. But it’s no surprise considering your head has been hiding in your anus. Indeed, all twelve – count 'em, 12 – of your comments here have one thing in common: ignorance. You could probably add partisan stupidity but I didn’t want to tax your limited abilities.
“Although we did not find clear evidence that Secretary Clinton or her colleagues intended to violate laws governing the handling of classified information" - proves that she broke the law or very poorly written statement.
Thank God you’re not a judge. The level of subjectivity in your statement is astounding. This is very much the way morons interpret the 2nd Amendment – by leaving out half the statement.
Since elision is your cup of tea, how about this: “[W]e did not find clear evidence that Secretary Clinton violate[d] laws.”
Did you catch Matt Cartwright’s five minutes today?
Cartwright: “If you’re going to classify something, there has to be a header on the document. Right?”
Comey: “Correct.”
Cartwright: “Was there a header on the three documents that we’ve discussed today that had the little “C” in the text someplace?”
Comey: “No…There was no header on the email or the text.”
Cartwright: “So if Secretary Clinton really were an expert at what’s classified and what’s not classified and were following the manual, the absence of a header would tell her immediately that those three documents were not classified. Am I correct in that?”
Comey: “That would be a reasonable inference.”
And this is the lawbreaking you want to throw at Mrs. Clinton?
LOL – So the offending threads failed to follow standard procedure, and Mrs. Clinton failed to note a little “C” buried in the text, in the midst of reading a couple thousand emails every day, and this is what you bring to the table as an example of her lawlessness.
Are you for real? You know the line about “bringing a knife to a gunfight”? In this case, you’re bringing a toothpick to a gunfight.
Breaking the law is breaking the law. No matter what ones opinion is of the circumstance.
Since not all of the emails were presented and there was plenty of obfuscation, we may never know what laws were really broken.
But we know that she had 1000s of emails that should not have been on a non-State email server.
We know many (what was it 100s) that were classified (all the way to Top Secret)
We know that the IT-guy found it necessary to plead the 5th.
We also know that only a handful of individuals would be not charged with a crime under the same circumstance.
We also know that if it was not Hillary and was a “R”, then you all would be whining a throwing a tantrum about the facts. But since it was Hillary, we can just ignore the facts. Way to be a hypocrite.
“We also know that if it was not Hillary and was a “R”, then you all would be whining a throwing a tantrum about the facts. But since it was Hillary, we can just ignore the facts.”
You mean the way we’ve all been throwing a tantrum that neither previous Secretary of State Powell or Rice has been investigated for using unauthorized email servers?
Because that furor has been almost deafening among Democrats. So loud I can barely hear it.
The projection of your standard hypocrite painting himself into a corner is a real treat to watch.