[Politics] Clinton Email Scandal: State Dept in on cover-up

Yeah, krazyscrapper is the one that after I linked 12+ articles showing times that having a gun did in fact stop a public shooting, despite those articles and the incident that was in the news at the time, claimed that no such proof existed and I did not in fact provide any proof.   
So it's not just Hillary related for her.


I don't know what to tell you, she has a long history of never conceding anything, even in the face of indisputable proof. No matter what you say or what actual facts are presented, she will claim they aren't fact. It's usually futile to attempt a real discussion. 

To the Op I am sorry to say but you sound like a broken record ! We get it you hate her .

You do understand that someone can make a comment and it can be interrupted differently by as many people who hear it don't you?   

You "see" Hillary one way and I see her another way.   I at least ask what you and others are seeing that I'm not.  Because I would like to know.   I have asked and asked for the "smoking guns" to back up how you "see" Hillary or even President Obama for that matter and all I get are stupid comments like the ones you made above.

Which leads me to believe you got nothing.  And because you can't make your case you are reduced to stupid comments that you are going to "show me"  by ridicule .  Phooey.

Bottom line if you can make your case against Hillary that I can't rip apart I'll tell you that I agree with you.  Until then you're just blowing smoke.

Then please tell you how you interpret the following, because I am dying to know.

I really hope the spreadsheet keepers save this gem. This is gonna gonna come in handy one day when giving someone a slap of reality.

um ... huh??

ETA never mind. I think I figured it out. I must need another cup of coffee.

Well actually I was thinking of the JW documents when I made my comment about reading something two ways.

As to that "smoking gun" email.  So what?  She is quite clear in what she said. But it's much to do about nothing.   That whole thing about was it or wasn't it a terrorist attack , what role did or didn't the video play in the attack, and what was Obama and now Clinton is hiding is bogus.  

1.  I don't need the government to tell me if an attack is a terrorist attack or not.  I'm quite capable enough to decide that for myself.  And I really don't care what role the video played in the attack.  In the big scheme of things there are a lot more important things then if the video did or did not play a roll in the attack.  2.  The only time that it matters if the US Federal Government calls an attack a terrorist attack would be for an attack in the US.  Calling it a terrorist attack would act as a  trigger for the government sponsored terrorism insurance coverage known as TRIA to respond.  

From what I read in the Senate Intelligence report there was no great conspiracy to mislead the American people.  What happened was a rush to get information out to the American people, agencies not working together, and the information was coming out of a hostile area was spotty at best.  I mean when one's intelligence gathering agency is getting "intelligence" by reading a newspaper you can see there were problems gathering intelligence in that area in the days after the attack.  Maybe the Obama Administration should have withheld information until they were sure of their facts from all agencies involved.  But if they had I bet any amount of money they would have been accused of withholding information because they want to hide something.   But if you want to believe in the great conspiracy knock yourself out.

I read your definition of a bot.  If you had been paying attention on more then one occasion I have said Hillary is flawed and has baggage.  But in spite of that she has my vote.   And truth be told I could say exactly the same about you.  I could try and push reality into your "Hillary hating world" but you aren't interested in hearing anything about Hillary that goes against how you see her.

The way I see it you feel you are seeing the "real" Hillary and anyone who doesn't is wrong.   Up until today I use to think what are they seeing about Hillary that I'm not.   But not anymore.  I decided I really don't care because to be honest, you Hillary dislikers have never been able to make your case.   So I decided I'm right and you all are wrong until someone proves otherwise.   Came to the same conclusion about Obama and his dislikers.     I think that is called to agree to disagree.

I will try to take a look sometime soon. Just this week, I managed to read the Bloomberg article on abortion clinics you posted several weeks ago. My attention span is short these days.

It is a partisan fallacy that budget cuts were responsible for a lack of security.  Like many government agencies, the State Department doesn't necessarily get 100% of the funds requested, but

In other words, they didn't even request the OCO funds.

This was backed up by testimony:

Yes, a whole slew of people bear responsibility, but like every other organization in the world - be it government or private, the success ... or failure ... is ultimately the responsibility of the top banana. In this case it was Clinton under the Obama administration. It all comes under the heading of leadership: Do you want to shoulder the responsibility of the entire organization?

She gets the accolades for successes even if an army of minions actually made it happen but the flip side is she also gets the blame when something goes horribly wrong. You don't get to choose.

I am going to assume you felt an equal amount of virulence toward President Reagan when 240 Marines were killed in a terrorist bombing in Lebanon and/or over the 100% illegal Iran/contra business.