• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Is the public tired of Hillary's email?

Is the public tired of Hillary's email?

  • Total voters
    61
pbrauer

pbrauer

DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 6, 2010
Messages
25,394
Reaction score
7,208
Location
Oregon
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
Let me try this again.
I think the Republicans have shot their wad on this just like they did with the Rev. Wright story. If they aren't tired of it now, they surely will be by election day 2016

Yes, No, Other
 
You'll have to be more clear. Tired of Hillary's lies about her email or tired of hearing about the investigation?
 
I just want her to be held responsible for it...

Yea I'm tired of hearing about it because nothing much is being done...

I want it over with, but investigations take time..
 
pbrauer said:
Let me try this again.
I think the Republicans have shot their wad on this just like they did with the Rev. Wright story. If they aren't tired of it now, they surely will be by election day 2016

Yes, No, Other
Click to expand...

We're tired of watching the Republicans spend our money climbing a greased pole.
 
I rather hear about why 4000 troops were killed in Iraq and nothing to show by bush and cheeney
 
A non-partisan panel would be more fruitful. It's clear the GOP wishes to undermine Hilary on anything. Whilst I don't like her, a biased investigation isn't a concise investigation.
 
pbrauer said:
Let me try this again.
I think the Republicans have shot their wad on this just like they did with the Rev. Wright story. If they aren't tired of it now, they surely will be by election day 2016

Yes, No, Other
Click to expand...

Except that the FBI is investigating and they haven't shot their wad yet. Plus, if any of those deleted emails are recovered and made public, this issue will have a whole new life that will interest everybody.
 
emails yes im tired of it... but Benghazi with 4 americans getting killed and 8 hearings.... how many hearings were held for 911 1000s getting killed with bush and how long were those hearings? I heard it was less time than Benghazi
 
I dont like her but she is just a scapegoat ....
 
pbrauer said:
Let me try this again.
I think the Republicans have shot their wad on this just like they did with the Rev. Wright story. If they aren't tired of it now, they surely will be by election day 2016

Yes, No, Other
Click to expand...

I believe the Dems are tired of hearing about it. It's funny, you compare this to the Rev. Wright "story". There never really was a "story" on that. Every time someone attempted to bring that up the Obama minions just cried racism and drowned out the story. Now we have the President "proclaiming" that Hillary's sorry attempt at evading the Law did not put any classified information at risk.

I have said this more than once. As soon as the e-mail story becomes more clear there will be a Presidential Pardon coupled with Executive Privilege and we will never find out the whole truth about Benghazi.
 
Rentoc said:
I believe the Dems are tired of hearing about it. It's funny, you compare this to the Rev. Wright "story". There never really was a "story" on that. Every time someone attempted to bring that up the Obama minions just cried racism and drowned out the story. Now we have the President "proclaiming" that Hillary's sorry attempt at evading the Law did not put any classified information at risk.

I have said this more than once. As soon as the e-mail story becomes more clear there will be a Presidential Pardon coupled with Executive Privilege and we will never find out the whole truth about Benghazi.
Click to expand...

You are too funny, you can't have a pardon before you have a conviction first. Great thinking on your part. LMMFAO
 
pbrauer said:
You are too funny, you can't have a pardon before you have a conviction first. Great thinking on your part. LMMFAO
Click to expand...

I think you may be wrong Pete. Consider Nixon's pardon. Had he been convicted of anything?

An opinion on the subject:

Constitution Allows Pardons Before Conviction - NYTimes.com

The leading Supreme Court case is Ex parte Garland (1867). Justice Stephen J. Field, writing for the Court in a 5-4 decision, held that the President's pardoning power is ''unlimited,'' and ''It extends to every offense known to the law, and may be exercised at any time after its commission, either before legal proceedings are taken, or during their pendency, or after conviction and judgment.''

In Murphy v. Ford (1975), a Federal District Court in Michigan rejected a suit for a declaratory judgment that President Ford's unconditional pardon of Richard M. Nixon was unconstitutional. The court found that the President had the constitutional power to grant a pre-indictment pardon, citing Ex parte Garland in its support.
 
I'm not sure but my impression of my own party has dropped significantly in recent years due to to obsession for trying to make a "Watergate" issue out of anything they can in order to tarnish the democrats.

I think the one that was the worst was Benghazi-gate. The scandal they tried to manufacture was in the initial days after the fateful day and after the tragedy had occurred, the administration initially thought wrongly that the MOTIVE for the attack was a YouTube video. Republicans tried to make it seem like is the Obama administration initially hadn't thought for a day or so a YouTube video was the reason the the attack, the ambassador and military people who gave their lives would be alive today.
 
pbrauer said:
Let me try this again.
I think the Republicans have shot their wad on this just like they did with the Rev. Wright story. If they aren't tired of it now, they surely will be by election day 2016

Yes, No, Other
Click to expand...

I think most of the public feel that even though she is guilty that nothing will come of it.Most people know that there is a set rules of the little people and a different set of rules for the people high up. And if anything does happen to that person high up it is because that person pissed off the wrong people.
 
so if they scapegoat her, and prosecute her that draws a very strong line in the sand no?

how can they go after her and not others who have done as much if not worse?
 
jamesrage said:
I think most of the public feel that even though she is guilty that nothing will come of it.Most people know that there is a set rules of the little people and a different set of rules for the people high up. And if anything does happen to that person high up it is because that person pissed off the wrong people.
Click to expand...

see this is what I think

plus when in power despicable deeds are always done...no one has been held accountable up until now

how is that going to play out for the future
 
pbrauer said:
Let me try this again.
I think the Republicans have shot their wad on this just like they did with the Rev. Wright story. If they aren't tired of it now, they surely will be by election day 2016

Yes, No, Other
Click to expand...

While the public may, or may not be, tired of hearing about Hillary's email scandal and her lies in response, that doesn't really have much to do about the investigations into possible criminal activities and possible compromise of confidential / top secret materials.

Since when does the public being tired of hearing about something make criminal investigations stop? It doesn't.

jamesrage said:
I think most of the public feel that even though she is guilty that nothing will come of it.Most people know that there is a set rules of the little people and a different set of rules for the people high up. And if anything does happen to that person high up it is because that person pissed off the wrong people.
Click to expand...

Yeah, this is probably what's going to happen and where Hillary's scandal going to end up. Pretty sad state of affairs, really.
 
celticwar17 said:
I just want her to be held responsible for it...

Yea I'm tired of hearing about it because nothing much is being done...

I want it over with, but investigations take time..
Click to expand...

This investigation will go nowhere.

Just like all the rest.

This administration enforces law selectively and the cheerleaders in the media will not hold their feet to the fire over it.

As long as this is a country of personalities and power instead of a nation of laws, there will not be an effective investigation. Just the sham performance of the 5th Amendment brigade and the political posturing of the testicle free Republicans waving and falling back.
 
plutonium said:
I rather hear about why 4000 troops were killed in Iraq and nothing to show by bush and cheeney
Click to expand...

Why?

Because Obama failed in his responsibility to maintain the peace.

He was handed a won war and he failed to win the negotiations to maintain order in the war torn country that was there. When he ran out on the Iraqis, they were effectively ruined and the current situation is completely Obama's doing.

Failing in negotiations is the identifying marker of this administration. Can you name a negotiation that he did well on? I can't think of any.

I hope this helps you out.
 
Fletch said:
Except that the FBI is investigating and they haven't shot their wad yet. Plus, if any of those deleted emails are recovered and made public, this issue will have a whole new life that will interest everybody.
Click to expand...

If it is determined that a crime was committed, who do you think will prosecute the case?

It certainly will not be prosecuted by the executive branch of our government. There isn't another entity authorized under our law to do so.

If laws are enforced only at the pleasure of the powerful, laws don't exist. Only favoritism exists. We are now a banana republic with a real live oligarchy and and a complete lack of the rule of law.
 
ocean515 said:
I think you may be wrong Pete. Consider Nixon's pardon. Had he been convicted of anything?

An opinion on the subject:

Constitution Allows Pardons Before Conviction - NYTimes.com

The leading Supreme Court case is Ex parte Garland (1867). Justice Stephen J. Field, writing for the Court in a 5-4 decision, held that the President's pardoning power is ''unlimited,'' and ''It extends to every offense known to the law, and may be exercised at any time after its commission, either before legal proceedings are taken, or during their pendency, or after conviction and judgment.''

In Murphy v. Ford (1975), a Federal District Court in Michigan rejected a suit for a declaratory judgment that President Ford's unconditional pardon of Richard M. Nixon was unconstitutional. The court found that the President had the constitutional power to grant a pre-indictment pardon, citing Ex parte Garland in its support.
Click to expand...

Introducing facts into a political discussion is very dangerous.

The party faithful may get hurt as they change direction at full speed.
 
code1211 said:
Introducing facts into a political discussion is very dangerous.

The party faithful may get hurt as they change direction at full speed.
Click to expand...

Some display what may be permanent damage from such continuous direction changes. Call it PCDSD.
 
Smeagol said:
I'm not sure but my impression of my own party has dropped significantly in recent years due to to obsession for trying to make a "Watergate" issue out of anything they can in order to tarnish the democrats.

I think the one that was the worst was Benghazi-gate. The scandal they tried to manufacture was in the initial days after the fateful day and after the tragedy had occurred, the administration initially thought wrongly that the MOTIVE for the attack was a YouTube video. Republicans tried to make it seem like is the Obama administration initially hadn't thought for a day or so a YouTube video was the reason the the attack, the ambassador and military people who gave their lives would be alive today.
Click to expand...

The politicization of this is clearly a foul ball and nobody on either side should be proud of what they have done.

That said, Hillary made an issue of the "3:00 phone call" call in the campaign.

That call came in and both Hillary and Obama got the call. Neither seems to have done ANYTHING that could have helped in the moment.

I would like to know exactly what was being done by both of them in the 7 hours that the 4 Americans were killed by the terrorists.

Why were no actions begun IMMEDIATELY to make the rescue?

Why were no contingency plans in place before the problems arose to protect this staff in a war zone?

The planning before the incident, the actions or lack of actions during the incident and the cover up that followed are all topics that beg to be explored.

Another separate, but related question is why the press corp has not hammered the questions repeatedly about the where, when, why and how of this whole disaster.

Right now, more than 3 years later, we still have no idea if either Hillary or Obama were aware of this any way at any level and what they were thinking or doing about it in the moment at the time.

Were they notified? Did they respond? Was their response anything beyond constructing political talking points? Why the utter lack of preparedness? Why the lack of responsiveness?

This was clearly a failure of planning, policy, preparedness and transparency. It is not being explored by the media. I wonder if this same debacle had been conducted by a Republican Administration if there might be at least some interest displayed by the actions and the reporting of the press?
 
eohrnberger said:
While the public may, or may not be, tired of hearing about Hillary's email scandal and her lies in response, that doesn't really have much to do about the investigations into possible criminal activities and possible compromise of confidential / top secret materials.

Since when does the public being tired of hearing about something make criminal investigations stop? It doesn't.



Yeah, this is probably what's going to happen and where Hillary's scandal going to end up. Pretty sad state of affairs, really.
Click to expand...
There is no criminal investigation of Hillary plus there the admission by the House Majority Leader about the Benghazi Select Commitee.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom