Value Buy
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 17:57:07 GMT -5
Posts: 18,680
Today's Mood: Getting better by the day!
Location: In the middle of enjoying retirement!
Favorite Drink: Zombie Dust from Three Floyd's brewery
Mini-Profile Name Color: e61975
Mini-Profile Text Color: 196ce6
|
Post by Value Buy on Jul 9, 2016 11:33:02 GMT -5
Colin Powel and Condelizza Rice used personal emails. No one cares about that any more than how many embassies were attacked and people killed in those attackes under Bush.
There was no evidence she had intent to trade secrets or leak information. She cooperated with the process... Ie they have said there is zero evidence of cover up for all the speculation here. There is no evidence that her emails were hacked in any way. There are just so many more important things to me than this. It it does bode badly because just like her husband, if she is pres, we are going to be privy to constant investigations of every possible little thing anyone can think of.... Highlighted sentence above...... Last I knew Colin Powell and Codelizza Rice are not being investigated. I know Powell has stated he has no saved e-mails. Maybe he is as big as liar as Clinton was on this issue. If you want Congress to waste seven million dollars on each of them to investigate their crimes, I am fine with that. Might have a problem with Democrats though. They claim it was disgraceful to waste millions of dollars on Hillary, so it would be a little two faced to do it against either one of them.
|
|
dondub
Senior Associate
The meek shall indeed inherit the earth but only after the Visigoths are done with it.
Joined: Jan 16, 2014 19:31:06 GMT -5
Posts: 12,110
Location: Seattle
Favorite Drink: Laphroig
|
Post by dondub on Jul 9, 2016 11:38:34 GMT -5
Numerous Repo Congresses failed to investigate Rice and Powell but have gleefully wasted millions on Clinton. Hmmmm...
No need to predict Demo hypocrisy when you already have the two face from the Repos.
|
|
Value Buy
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 17:57:07 GMT -5
Posts: 18,680
Today's Mood: Getting better by the day!
Location: In the middle of enjoying retirement!
Favorite Drink: Zombie Dust from Three Floyd's brewery
Mini-Profile Name Color: e61975
Mini-Profile Text Color: 196ce6
|
Post by Value Buy on Jul 9, 2016 11:40:43 GMT -5
Numerous Repo Congresses failed to investigate Rice and Powell but have gleefully wasted millions on Clinton. Hmmmm...
No need to predict Demo hypocrisy when you already have the two face from the Repos. When the Democrats retake the Senate this fall,let them investigate Rice and Powell. I imagine they would go after Rice. She is still a Republican.
|
|
dondub
Senior Associate
The meek shall indeed inherit the earth but only after the Visigoths are done with it.
Joined: Jan 16, 2014 19:31:06 GMT -5
Posts: 12,110
Location: Seattle
Favorite Drink: Laphroig
|
Post by dondub on Jul 9, 2016 11:48:35 GMT -5
Why would they? All these 'investigations', as you call them, are simply about staining Hillary. It's not like this worthless POS Repo Congress can do anything else. I doubt any Demo Senate would waste either the time or the money on a witch hunt. There are more important matters to be addressed.
|
|
ken a.k.a OMK
Senior Associate
They killed Kenny, the bastards.
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 14:39:20 GMT -5
Posts: 14,120
Location: Maryland
|
Post by ken a.k.a OMK on Jul 9, 2016 11:53:46 GMT -5
The laws on emails changed after Rice, Powell and Clinton left office. All this has been a witch hunt. 8 committees going on 9?
|
|
Tennesseer
Member Emeritus
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 21:58:42 GMT -5
Posts: 63,690
|
Post by Tennesseer on Jul 9, 2016 12:08:24 GMT -5
The laws on emails changed after Rice, Powell and Clinton left office. All this has been a witch hunt. 8 committees going on 9? BINGO!Most of us have known this from the get go.
|
|
tallguy
Senior Associate
Joined: Apr 2, 2011 19:21:59 GMT -5
Posts: 14,221
|
Post by tallguy on Jul 9, 2016 12:10:47 GMT -5
And some refuse the knowledge STILL!
|
|
grits
Senior Member
Joined: Dec 17, 2012 13:43:33 GMT -5
Posts: 3,185
|
Post by grits on Jul 10, 2016 17:59:19 GMT -5
I remember the televised vote on the Nixon impeachment proceedings. It was a roll call vote. It wasn't split along party lines. Some of the most powerful men in the country burst into tears as they said yes. Fast forward less than 30 years later, BC commits perjury and obstruction of justice. The vote split along party lines. The ethics of the general public seems to be reflected in the ethics of the nations leaders.
I do not know why they thought they'd get HC. She intentionally deleted over 30k emails. Did they honestly think she'd leave evidence around that would hang her?
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Jun 2, 2024 10:03:07 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 10, 2016 18:56:14 GMT -5
Well they found the emails pretty easily...
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,299
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Jul 10, 2016 21:24:47 GMT -5
Well they found the emails pretty easily... emails generally have recipients.
|
|
Virgil Showlion
Distinguished Associate
Moderator
[b]leones potest resistere[/b]
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 15:19:33 GMT -5
Posts: 27,448
|
Post by Virgil Showlion on Jul 11, 2016 5:32:40 GMT -5
Lmao... Clinton asked for the Gramm (Republican of Texas) Leach (R-Iowa) Bliley (R-Virginia) Act... Yeah, he kind of blew his argument right there, didn't he? www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/?pid=56922Kind of blew your rebuttal right there, didn't you? The sad fact is that the GLB Act had the overwhelming support of both parties when it passed. Pres. Clinton was one of its many champions.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Jun 2, 2024 10:03:07 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 11, 2016 6:53:51 GMT -5
Yeah, he kind of blew his argument right there, didn't he? www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/?pid=56922Kind of blew your rebuttal right there, didn't you? The sad fact is that the GLB Act had the overwhelming support of both parties when it passed. Pres. Clinton was one of its many champions. After concessions. With a republican congress. It was a republican bill. Please don't insist otherwise.
|
|
tallguy
Senior Associate
Joined: Apr 2, 2011 19:21:59 GMT -5
Posts: 14,221
|
Post by tallguy on Jul 11, 2016 9:25:34 GMT -5
www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/?pid=56922Kind of blew your rebuttal right there, didn't you? The sad fact is that the GLB Act had the overwhelming support of both parties when it passed. Pres. Clinton was one of its many champions. After concessions. With a republican congress. It was a republican bill. Please don't insist otherwise. Yes. Democrats initially opposed it. They supported it only after negotiations and concessions by the Republicans on anti-redlining and privacy concerns. Even the statement that Virgil linked lists some of President Clinton's concerns about the bill as passed. The bill had broad support only AFTER those concessions were made, such that it would have been possible to override a veto even if one had been forthcoming. The fact remains that the initial claim that Clinton "asked" for it and that "the idiots in Congress gave it to him" is still incorrect.
|
|
dondub
Senior Associate
The meek shall indeed inherit the earth but only after the Visigoths are done with it.
Joined: Jan 16, 2014 19:31:06 GMT -5
Posts: 12,110
Location: Seattle
Favorite Drink: Laphroig
|
Post by dondub on Jul 11, 2016 12:21:24 GMT -5
And the further rejection of repo policies under Bush and Greenspan that fueled the crash in 2008, all under grit's claim he is non partisan.
|
|
Virgil Showlion
Distinguished Associate
Moderator
[b]leones potest resistere[/b]
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 15:19:33 GMT -5
Posts: 27,448
|
Post by Virgil Showlion on Jul 11, 2016 18:30:37 GMT -5
www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/?pid=56922Kind of blew your rebuttal right there, didn't you? The sad fact is that the GLB Act had the overwhelming support of both parties when it passed. Pres. Clinton was one of its many champions. After concessions. With a republican congress. It was a republican bill. Please don't insist otherwise. It was a bipartisan bill, back in the time when bills could be bipartisan. A whole-government affair. Republicans controlled both the House and the Senate; Pres. Clinton held the White House. Sponsors introduced the bill, the two parties got together, hammered out the details, passed it with overwhelming support from both sides, and handed it off to Pres. Clinton for signing. He promptly did so and praised all that the legislative and executive branches had come to do. I'll grant you that the statement 'Clinton "asked" for it and that "the idiots in Congress gave it to him"' isn't accurate. The truth is that "the Republicans asked for it, the Democrats supported it, and Pres. Clinton pitched the finished product to the American public on behalf of both parties". Proof that even bills conceived in a strong bipartisan spirit can prove to be horrendously costly mistakes.
|
|
tallguy
Senior Associate
Joined: Apr 2, 2011 19:21:59 GMT -5
Posts: 14,221
|
Post by tallguy on Jul 11, 2016 18:49:24 GMT -5
Again, no, not quite. Republicans created it, Democrats negotiated concessions that they wanted in return, and THEN it had bipartisan support after those concessions were made. Yes, it was a terrible idea, and a terrible bill, but to craft it as a "bipartisan bill" is not in keeping with the true definition of the term. And no, I didn't agree with President Clinton's praise of the bill in the statement, but that is now hindsight, and easy to say. What is harder to say is whether anyone had any real idea at the time of how badly it could be abused.
|
|
Virgil Showlion
Distinguished Associate
Moderator
[b]leones potest resistere[/b]
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 15:19:33 GMT -5
Posts: 27,448
|
Post by Virgil Showlion on Jul 11, 2016 20:28:02 GMT -5
Again, no, not quite. Republicans created it, Democrats negotiated concessions that they wanted in return, and THEN it had bipartisan support after those concessions were made. Yes, it was a terrible idea, and a terrible bill, but to craft it as a "bipartisan bill" is not in keeping with the true definition of the term. And no, I didn't agree with President Clinton's praise of the bill in the statement, but that is now hindsight, and easy to say. What is harder to say is whether anyone had any real idea at the time of how badly it could be abused. Well whatever. And to answer your question: I don't think any of them had even the slightest idea of what they were unleashing. I think they were hubristic, Koolaid-sucking fools that believed in the "financial modernization" rhetoric and didn't have a shred of economic sense between them, they ignored the lessons of history, they ignored the warnings of actual commercial bankers (back in the day when "banker" was a respected profession and didn't simply refer to any investment firm with capital to burn) who pleaded with them not to do it, and they opened Pandora's Box. I've heard actual bankers, men who I respect, claim very sincerely that the lot of them deserve to be hung for treason, and I'm not so sure I don't agree with this.
|
|