- Joined
- Dec 22, 2005
- Messages
- 66,440
- Reaction score
- 47,479
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Independent
No he offered.....that if she felt that her use of private emails was a concern of hers. He was willing to leave that as an option for her.
That doesn't mean she cannot be subpoena'd in the future due to any revelations that come forth, and over a specific issue.
If he can't interrupt her and bring her back on point. She will waste time with her ramblings and memories.
Even better. The more she looks like she's dissembling, the more she reinforces the image that she's untrustworthy.
she hung him out to dry
he wanted a private hearing she INSISTED on a PUBLIC one
notice who one that early round
I think Republicans seriously overestimate how much Americans care about Benghazi and Clinton's emails. They want to get her in trouble but aren't they basically using tax payers money to try and help out their parties candidate for next year? So who should really be getting in trouble?
I worked at headquarters for a multi-national corporation, and experienced first-hand how business differs from government. Business has to make a profit, where the government doesn't have that Damocles sword hanging over its head. Business could never have an $18 trillion debt, as an example, or they would have long since had to file for bankruptcy - so their eye is always on the bottom line. In truth, most of us have the same limitations on our family budgets, so I understand that thinking. What I don't understand is why those in DC seem to think otherwise, and I'm talking both sides of the aisle. Business also seems to be more nimble in making decisions, too; plus a CEO and his advisors can get fired almost immediately if the shareholders get irate enough, so I wonder, if government had to live under the same conditions, if we'd be in better shape financially than we are?. I think we probably would be, because of the accountability factor, and they wouldn't be allowed to keep their job until the next election, either. The only "shareholders" in government are the taxpayers, and few politicians seem to care what we think - until election time comes. Then we're suddenly important again, and the cycle continues, ad nauseum, as lots of promises are made to correct things that aren't working. Weird way to live, but I guess we're used to it. :shock:
you do realize that one's attorney can speak on one's behalfSeems the WSJ had it all from April. Note she didn't say anything
NO... and her attorney said it was unnecessary.
NOThen Gowdy LET her choose her fate.
notice how gowdy was shot downThe committee previously requested two appearances from Mrs. Clinton over her exclusive use of a private email during her time at the State Department: one public hearing and one private transcribed interview.
An attorney for Mrs. Clinton said this week that a private interview was unnecessary and that the former secretary of state was willing to answer questions about her email arrangement in public.
she made gowdy her eunuchIn his letter, Mr. Gowdy said a private interview still remained an option if Mrs. Clinton was concerned about the privacy implications of testifying about her email practices. He encouraged her to meet with the panel twice.....snip~
she hung him out to dry
he wanted a private hearing she INSISTED on a PUBLIC one
notice who one that early round
"It's it's" 'MURICAN!
I think Republicans seriously overestimate how much Americans care about Benghazi and Clinton's emails. They want to get her in trouble but aren't they basically using tax payers money to try and help out their parties candidate for next year? So who should really be getting in trouble?
I was taken aback this morning after reading the headline "Hillary agrees to testify." It sounded like she was in charge of the investigation and had a decision to make - and that surprised me. What would have happened if she had said no? I'm not being snarky; I honestly don't know how these things work. :shock:
Seems the WSJ had it all from April. Note she didn't say anything and her attorney said it was unnecessary. Then Gowdy LET her choose her fate.
The committee previously requested two appearances from Mrs. Clinton over her exclusive use of a private email during her time at the State Department: one public hearing and one private transcribed interview.
An attorney for Mrs. Clinton said this week that a private interview was unnecessary and that the former secretary of state was willing to answer questions about her email arrangement in public.
In his letter, Mr. Gowdy said a private interview still remained an option if Mrs. Clinton was concerned about the privacy implications of testifying about her email practices. He encouraged her to meet with the panel twice.....snip~
Trey Gowdy Asks Hillary Clinton to Testify at Benghazi Hearing in May - Washington Wire - WSJ
That's bull**** and I can use clownhall to prove it.
Clinton Lawyer: Request For An Interview Denied, Mr. Gowdy. - Matt Vespa
On March 31, Rep. Trey Gowdy (R-SC)–chairman of the House Select Committee of Benghazi–requested a transcribed interview with Hillary Clinton to answer questions regarding the use of her private email system during her tenure as Secretary of State. Yesterday, the Clinton lawyers responded by saying no (via NYT):
Hillary Rodham Clinton’s lawyer told Representative Trey Gowdy, chairman of the House committee investigating the 2012 Benghazi attacks, that she saw no need for a private interview over her use of a private email account while secretary of state and asked that he not delay her next appearance before the committee.
The letter from Mrs. Clinton’s lawyer, David Kendall, comes as she is ramping up her presidential campaign and hoping to put the controversies over her email use and the attack in Libya behind her.
“There is no reason to delay her appearance or to have her testify in a private interview,” Mr. Kendall wrote, adding that she has already publicly answered questions about her email practices at the State Department.
Mrs. Clinton has testified on Benghazi before House and Senate committees, and Mr. Kendall said she would be happy to discuss her email use when she testifies before Mr. Gowdy’s panel.
It suggest that Republicans value the lives of Americans who served their country and died doing so as opposed to a lame president who hides behind a lie of a "spontaneous demonstration" and sends in the FB ****ing I to get the terrorists who are as we speak training other terrorists.
And if you're so concerned about the lives of Iraqi's, let's talk about that early withdrawal and Obama's "I ended the war" which seems to still be a war.
To equate the lives lost of servicemen and diplomats to a bunch of baby killing terrorists shows the true colors of the Amerikan liberal.....
It's it's American it has to be apologized for, and uniformed Americans are fodder for the great left wing propaganda wars
I have said it before, unless they can prove that Hilary deliberately tried to get those Americans killed in Benghazi, I think this is a non-story.
And I also find it incredibly hypocritical that Reps do not seem to give a care about the thousands of American and tens of thousands of innocent Iraqi deaths in Operation Iraqi Freedom and it's aftermath...but they go absolutely berserk over these four American deaths in Benghazi.
This does not just smell of partisanship hypocrisy...it absolutely reeks of it.
And, once again, I am neither Rep nor Dem and I think Hilary would make a lousy POTUS...so I am not partisan at all on this.
I worked at headquarters for a multi-national corporation, and experienced first-hand how business differs from government. Business has to make a profit, where the government doesn't have that Damocles sword hanging over its head. Business could never have an $18 trillion debt, as an example, or they would have long since had to file for bankruptcy - so their eye is always on the bottom line. In truth, most of us have the same limitations on our family budgets, so I understand that thinking. What I don't understand is why those in DC seem to think otherwise, and I'm talking both sides of the aisle. Business also seems to be more nimble in making decisions, too; plus a CEO and his advisors can get fired almost immediately if the shareholders get irate enough, so I wonder, if government had to live under the same conditions, if we'd be in better shape financially than we are?. I think we probably would be, because of the accountability factor, and they wouldn't be allowed to keep their job until the next election, either. The only "shareholders" in government are the taxpayers, and few politicians seem to care what we think - until election time comes. Then we're suddenly important again, and the cycle continues, ad nauseum, as lots of promises are made to correct things that aren't working. Weird way to live, but I guess we're used to it. :shock:
I have said it before, unless they can prove that Hilary deliberately tried to get those Americans killed in Benghazi, I think this is a non-story.
And I also find it incredibly hypocritical that Reps do not seem to give a care about the thousands of American and tens of thousands of innocent Iraqi deaths in Operation Iraqi Freedom and it's aftermath...but they go absolutely berserk over these four American deaths in Benghazi.
This does not just smell of partisanship hypocrisy...it absolutely reeks of it.
And, once again, I am neither Rep nor Dem and I think Hilary would make a lousy POTUS...so I am not partisan at all on this.
Whats amusing is why they laugh at Benghazi.....that this Committee of Number 9. Has caused 2 IG Investigations. One for where the 6 Billion that was lost at State while she ran the place. The other for her aides and their Special Designation as Employees of State.
Then they got copies of the Emails that Blumenthal sent to Hillary......while she broke her agreement with BO over Foreign Donors to Charity. Then allowing a breach of US National Security.....and opening up BO and the White House too.
Plus they were the ones to discover Hillary's Emails and that State never had Hillary's when the other Committees asked for the info. I would stress "asked" as no other committee had the powers to compel any to do anything.
do you understand what i wrote
never did i post "counter her questions"
If I can just interject your wall...
The banks did have billions in liabilities. Remember the bank bailouts at taxpayer expenses that Started under Bush? I'm against all bailouts: the ones authorized by Bush and Obama, but if you're going to "go there" make sure you go all the way. Both Dems and Reps gave the banks billions with no accountability.
It said nothing refuting what Townhall reported. nice try but you are WRONG.
Polgara this post was a pleasure to read.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?