About damn time
Clinton facing new calls to turn over server after IGs request criminal probe
Hillary Clinton faced new calls Friday to turn over her personal server after key inspectors general asked the Justice Department to open a criminal investigation into whether classified material was improperly shared on the former secretary of state's account.
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2015/07/...on-emails/
It'll never happen they'll be to busy looking into whoever exposed planned parenthood
Can someone explain to me how this thing isn't absolutely damaging her Presidential bid?
Quote:Can someone explain to me how this thing isn't absolutely damaging her Presidential bid?
Because the MSM is covering it up
Quote:Because the MSM is covering it up
But the original article is from Fox News, which is part of the MSM
Quote:Can someone explain to me how this thing isn't absolutely damaging her Presidential bid?
Part of the reason is the link that I posted above. The media is being "persuaded" by the Clinton campaign to change headlines and change news stories. Rather than report the actual facts. News organizations are reporting a "cleansed version" of the facts. It's all about the wording.
Which version is correct?
"
The paper initially reported that two inspectors general have asked the Justice Department to open a criminal investigation "into whether Hillary Rodham Clinton mishandled sensitive government information on a private email account she used as secretary of state.""
or
"t
he inspectors general now were asking for an inquiry "into whether sensitive government information was mishandled in connection with the personal email account Hillary Rodham Clinton used as secretary of state.""
That's mincing words, but it changes the implication from the "user" to the "user's email account".
How about the headline, which one is more correct?
Original headline.
"Criminal Inquiry Sought in
Hillary Clinton’s Use of Email"
changed to
"Criminal Inquiry Is Sought in
Clinton Email Account".
So which is it, Hillary's use of email or her email account?
Quote:Oh boy......
I'll bet you a beer next time one of us is on the others coast!
Quote:Part of the reason is the link that I posted above. The media is being "persuaded" by the Clinton campaign to change headlines and change news stories. Rather than report the actual facts. News organizations are reporting a "cleansed version" of the facts. It's all about the wording.
Which version is correct?
"The paper initially reported that two inspectors general have asked the Justice Department to open a criminal investigation "into whether Hillary Rodham Clinton mishandled sensitive government information on a private email account she used as secretary of state.""
or
"the inspectors general now were asking for an inquiry "into whether sensitive government information was mishandled in connection with the personal email account Hillary Rodham Clinton used as secretary of state.""
That's mincing words, but it changes the implication from the "user" to the "user's email account".
How about the headline, which one is more correct?
Original headline.
"Criminal Inquiry Sought in Hillary Clinton’s Use of Email"
changed to
"Criminal Inquiry Is Sought in Clinton Email Account".
So which is it, Hillary's use of email or her email account?
I see what you're saying. Perhaps I give the general public too much credit in their ability to see through that. I just don't understand how she can be so relatively unfazed in her candidacy with this swirling around her. Perhaps a Clinton supporter can enlighten me? Anyone?
I will agree that the media absolutely is not bringing their full weight down upon her.
Quote:Can someone explain to me how this thing isn't absolutely damaging her Presidential bid?
It is absolutely damaging her Presidential bid. She has been dropping in the polls.
I personally don't know anyone that supports Hillary is there even a Hillary supporter on this forum?
Isn't she pretty much the main Democratic nominee at the moment?
I mean, she obviously does have some supporters somewhere, I just don't see how they can reconcile this. We're going to elect someone that's very possibly already breaking the law?
Quote:Isn't she pretty much the main Democratic nominee at the moment?
I mean, she obviously does have some supporters somewhere, I just don't see how they can reconcile this. We're going to elect someone that's very possibly already breaking the law?
lol - like that would be a first.
The Hillary supporters I've run into fall into one of three groups: 1) women who are proud of a woman being so close to the highest office; 2) people who say they respect her; 3) those who see her as inevitable.
I've met very few, if any, other than the over-the-top she's a woman! types, that have any real passion or enthusiasm for her. But they sure see her as preferable to a Republican, especially a "Republican" like Donald Trump.
Quote:lol - like that would be a first.
The Hillary supporters I've run into fall into one of three groups: 1) women who are proud of a woman being so close to the highest office; 2) people who say they respect her; 3) those who see her as inevitable.
I've met very few, if any, other than the over-the-top she's a woman! types, that have any real passion or enthusiasm for her. But they sure see her as preferable to a Republican, especially a "Republican" like Donald Trump.
You left out 4) people who see her as preferable to a republican.
That is why it is essential that the Republicans nominate someone who will appeal to the most voters, and not just the "most conservative." Because I don't want to vote for Hillary Clinton, but the Republicans could force me into it if they nominate some wacko.
Quote:You left out 4) people who see her as preferable to a republican.
That is why it is essential that the Republicans nominate someone who will appeal to the most voters, and not just the "most conservative." Because I don't want to vote for Hillary Clinton, but the Republicans could force me into it if they nominate some wacko.
I don't think there's a Republican candidate I'd actually vote for, but I'd probably consider voting third party if they nominate someone like Rand Paul.
Quote:You left out 4) people who see her as preferable to a republican.
That is why it is essential that the Republicans nominate someone who will appeal to the most voters, and not just the "most conservative." Because I don't want to vote for Hillary Clinton, but the Republicans could force me into it if they nominate some wacko.
I probably will be voting Republican - unless the nominee is Donald Trump or Ted Cruz. I don't see Trump or Cruz getting the nod, but if either does I don't know what I'd do.
Third party is a wasted vote. Who would be running anyway? Trump or some other yahoo. I've never not voted for President but I guess there is always a chance of this being the first time.