Get under that bus Hillary!

Earlier this week, Hillary Clinton said that her emails were archived automatically by a computer at the State Department. A system that she put in place. So now the Obama State Department comes out and says that no such archive existed under Hillary. It was put into place a year after she left and it is not complete yet. So Hillary lies again and Obama pushes her under the bus.

What does it matter anyway!

A new wrinkle tonight, Hillary was required to sign a confidentiality statement and turn over all confidential material when she left office. This is even required of the president when they leave office but Hillary's people are hemming and hawing about the document. Fox News has filed a FOIA request for the State Department to show that document (that would be proof that she signed it and followed through on its requirements). So if the paper is signed then why is the State Department stone walling? If they don't have it, why is Hillary exempt from federal law?

Fuck that ugly cunt, throw her fat ass in prison.

Hillary lives in your head rent free.

Hillary lives in your head rent free. Originally Posted by i'va biggen

Regardless of what some may believe, no poster's head is that large.

Earlier this week, Hillary Clinton said that her emails were archived automatically by a computer at the State Department. A system that she put in place. So now the Obama State Department comes out and says that no such archive existed under Hillary. It was put into place a year after she left and it is not complete yet. So Hillary lies again and Obama pushes her under the bus.

What does it matter anyway!

A new wrinkle tonight, Hillary was required to sign a confidentiality statement and turn over all confidential material when she left office. This is even required of the president when they leave office but Hillary's people are hemming and hawing about the document. Fox News has filed a FOIA request for the State Department to show that document (that would be proof that she signed it and followed through on its requirements). So if the paper is signed then why is the State Department stone walling? If they don't have it, why is Hillary exempt from federal law? Originally Posted by JD Barleycorn

I guess it will all boil down in the end as to how badly someone wants to vote for the "first female POTUS" ... screw the qualifications, again, and screw whether she is a felon.

Earlier this week, Hillary Clinton said that her emails were archived automatically by a computer at the State Department. A system that she put in place. So now the Obama State Department comes out and says that no such archive existed under Hillary. It was put into place a year after she left and it is not complete yet. So Hillary lies again and Obama pushes her under the bus.

What does it matter anyway!

A new wrinkle tonight, Hillary was required to sign a confidentiality statement and turn over all confidential material when she left office. This is even required of the president when they leave office but Hillary's people are hemming and hawing about the document. Fox News has filed a FOIA request for the State Department to show that document (that would be proof that she signed it and followed through on its requirements). So if the paper is signed then why is the State Department stone walling? If they don't have it, why is Hillary exempt from federal law? Originally Posted by JD Barleycorn

She said she believed that all emails sent to a .gov address were archived. That's quite different from what you state. She never said she put it in place. Like the liberal media though, why let a few facts get in the way of a good story. Right?

Regardless of what some may believe, no poster's head is that large. Originally Posted by LexusLover

not physically in your head, dumbass

She said she believed that all emails sent to a .gov address were archived. That's quite different from what you state. She never said she put it in place. Like the liberal media though, why let a few facts get in the way of a good story. Right? Originally Posted by UnderConstruction

The buck stops at Hillary. She was in charge. Are you saying that she was completely out of touch with her department? Not the kind of person that I want running things but I didn't think that was going to happen anyway. Hillary is like the perennial movie villian, something always goes wrong.

Without Hillary, these seem to be your only choices;
Joe "the groper" Biden
Elizabeth "Fauxcahantus" Warren
Martin "pull my thumb" O'Malley

Without Hillary, these seem to be your only choices;
Joe "the groper" Biden
Elizabeth "Fauxcahantus" Warren
Martin "pull my thumb" O'Malley Originally Posted by JD Barleycorn

JDIdiot conveniently left out Jim "that's between me and my boy, Mr. President" Webb.

Imagine that!

http://www.jameswebb.com

"Field In View (pretty much)"

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epo...tion-3824.html

You Mean Senator Quitter? Originally Posted by gnadfly

Governor Quitter was never a "Senator."

The buck stops at Hillary. She was in charge. Are you saying that she was completely out of touch with her department? Not the kind of person that I want running things but I didn't think that was going to happen anyway. Hillary is like the perennial movie villian, something always goes wrong. Originally Posted by JD Barleycorn

I agree the buck stops with her but let's at least get it right.

You'd better talk to your masters. Webb is getting zero traction in the media. I've read a couple of his books years ago.



Maybe this photo was taken when someone accused him of writing pornography. Do you know that the rules of this forum prevent me from even talking about a passage in his book that caused this claim. I actually think Webb is a democrat I could vote for (I have to hear his current stand on the issues) but that is why he will never be a democrat candidate for president. He is too pro military, too politically incorrect, and too blunt (when the word is nuanced). Webb himself can't seem to remember which party he belongs to by serving both GOP and democrat presidents and supporting both GOP and democrat candidates. All of this ambiguity will tear him up in the primaries.

You'd better talk to your masters. Webb is getting zero traction in the media. I've read a couple of his books years ago. Originally Posted by JD Barleycorn

If the level of traction in the media that a candidate has !0 months prior to the Iowa Caucus were the only prerequisite, the Republican field would already been narrowed down to a select few. But it hasn't and we still have the Dirty Dozen (or so) shooting their mouths off.

There is plenty of time for traction but you first have to rev up the engines.

Unless of course, you've hitched your wagon behind one of the One-Trick Pony's in the Republican field.

Which Pony are you riding, JDIdiot? The Canadian Defector?