The howls of protest have shifted from she's being tormented to attacking the ability of the chairman of the committee; suddenly you are claiming you are far more intelligent that an educated and trained lawyer, that he is stupid and incompetent compared to you.
any fool can make such claims, as vacuous and empty as they are; if Gowdy is such an incompetent and Hillary such an angel of discretion then how is it he has had her AND Obama on the ropes for three years? How come, if Gowdy is s stupid and you are so smart, you are here whining about her innocence instead of making a fortune in law, or defending her?
The bleating claims, insults and petty arguments are growing more and more anemic; we have gone from trying to attack the mounting and unimpeachable evidence that she evaded the letter of the law. The mere fact you seize on his humble statement about being a mediocre prosecutor is desperate. It reveals that you know absolutely nothing about the Senate and how it operates, how committees are struck, how chairmen are chosen and how they are staffed.
Hillary Clinton is a slimy whore who sees herself as a benevolent Marie Antoinette, whereas the reality is she a cutthroat street fighter with one obsession, living in the White House. Whether they ever stick her for this, that fact cannot be denied, and attacking the integrity of a sitting senator, his intelligence and background only shows what a sewer rat she and her followers can be.
For the record, your knowledge of law is also embarrassing. No one is ever nor ever has been "found innocent", the term is used by Grubers, the law makes no such distiction as "innocence" as it does not exist. Under the law you are cleared when the prosecution fails to make its case and one is found "not guilty". Be careful of how much ignorance you display when claiming to be superior to a "self admitted mediocre prosecutor", your errors etc are on display for eternity