Hillary Clinton's Private E-Mail Draws Scrutiny

I firmly believe that having a court of opinions (i.e. congress prosecuting people) is not the way forward. But I tend to wonder, when the DoJ fails to do their job, who holds them into account? Sure if they do their job wrong, the Supreme Court can overrule the DoJ. But who is supposed to hold them to the fire when they fail to do their job?

Can a AG be impeached for failure to fulfill the duties of that office. If the DOJ, stonewalls the investigation into such, how can you prove that an AG has failed to meet the duties of office?

We have gotten to a point in time, where not only can the federal government not properly police itself, but is now out right refusing to do so. I mean WTF? I seem to remember some stuff about, it's a citizens duty to vote, sit on jury's and when necessary rein in a out of control government.

How far do we allow this shit to go before we all hold hands and say "no more shit head's, time to back this bitch up a bit". Or do we accept it, sit back and just bitch on the Internet until the regulate that form of free speech away and we are completely in the dark eating their bullshit. I don't really care what your political ideological views are, regardless of them, we should all be able to agree that this ain't how this shit is supposed to work.

Power is in the people? The government works for us? Why are they stripping our wealth, lying to us, covering up their corruption and self enrichment. They will jail your ass for breaking any number of stupid laws they pass on the regular, but are completely not held accountable to the laws they pass?

We've become slaves to a bunch of pussy politicians, when our constitutional birth right demands us to be free...What in the fuck people.:mad:
 
The oversight committees and then Congress via their control of the purse but they would never do that. Regarding civic duty, when is the last time politicians served on a jury? But you make a GREAT point to vote out ALL incumbents.

Civic duty, like laws and taxes, are for use serfs.
 
Back in June, Pagliano's attorney, Mark MacDougall, indicated his client will invoke the Fifth Amendment and refuse to answer any questions. This after a judge ruled the details of his immunity agreement could remain sealed. :rolleyes:

You could fill a truckload of 55 gal drums with the amount of sleazy tactics and corruption surrounding this mess.

Chaffetz and Gowdy. 2 of the smartest guys in the room.

ETA - Lynch is an idiot.

I want to agree and disagree. I agree that this is sleazy AF... I do not think Chaffetz is smart....At.All.
 
I beg to differ.

1. He didn't become chairman of the House Oversight & Government Reform Committee for being less than smart.

2. He use to be a democrat. I rest my case.

Smart may not be the right word. I think he is a good politician, I just disagree with his politics.
 
I want to agree and disagree. I agree that this is sleazy AF... I do not think Chaffetz is smart....At.All.

You do have to give Chaffetz credit for having his ducks all in a row. He marched his ducks out with authority, and only when needed.

Goudy demonstrates that he has a fair amount of patience with the political rhetoric that is spewed out in response to his questions. In the end, he does bring the conversation around to the question that was first asked. He does not take political BS for and answers.

I do not know how smart they are. They both seemed well prepared, and professional.
 
It's probably real, but it's also a very common practice. Not that it's a good practice, mind you, but appointing big donors to unimportant ambassador positions has been going on for a while.

Compare the ambassador appointments of Clinton, GW Bush, and Obama. Each President only selected about 70% of their ambassadors from career foreign service professionals. The rest were appointed from outside DoS, and often include big donors or business professionals.
 
What a bunch of shit.

Reality Check: Donald Trump on Hillary Clinton emails - CNNPolitics.com

This propaganda says that Trump's remarks are false but it misses the points that Americans are frustrated with.

Server was set up to evade FOIA.

Emails were printed to delay the process and preclude keyword searching.

Emails were Federal records and DOS doesn't have authority to destroy.

Emails were destroyed after Congressional preservation order was given (not needed because they were Federal records but Clinton violated Federal rules related to handling).
 
Hillary Clinton's answers under oath to questions about her email setup, use, and destruction.

Judicial Watch Releases New Hillary Clinton Email Answers Given under Oath - Judicial Watch

"Don't recall" used 21 times.

Vice news has made headway on its FOIA lawsuit.

The content of the undisclosed Clinton emails is unknown, but it's unlikely any of the messages will contain a smoking gun. Even so, it's not the content that's at issue. It's the fact that Clinton deleted emails she said were personal but turned out to be work-related. For some voters it calls into question Clinton's trustworthiness and honesty. The fact that some portion will be released just before Election Day could be damaging to Clinton's campaign if it ends up becoming a major talking point and she's forced to mount a defense about why the communications were never turned over to the State Department in the first place.

VICE News got the State Department to release more Hillary Clinton emails right before Election Day | VICE News
 
Last edited:
Back
Top