I thought it turned out that it wasn't actually a criminal investigation they were requesting.
From Reuters:
At least four emails from the private email account that Clinton used while secretary of state contained classified information, Inspector General Charles McCullough, who oversees U.S. intelligence agencies, told members of Congress in a letter on Thursday.
Clinton said on Saturday she had "no idea" what were the emails mentioned in the letter.
McCullough's letter said a sampling of 40 of about 30,000 emails sent or received by Clinton found at least four that contained information the government had classified as secret.
The information was classified at the time that the emails were sent, McCullough said."
Yeah I saw this part, I just thought that it came out that the original report regarding a criminal investigation specifically was not correct.
HAHAHA! The words right before this, were, "The Clinton Campaign responded.."
What a joke. If any leading presidential candidate on any side was found by an (let alone 2) inspector generals to need to forawrd a request for a criminal complaint due to national security issues, they would be tossed. If it was a pub or independent, they would have no chance....these questions would dog them.
However, since it is Hillary, you have people like PhDeac who actually said in an earlier post, "And you believed her?" That to me is astounding.
This place is a mess...i have only been lurking for a few weeks, but am astounded by the stupidity here. This quote sums up what I think is going on here: Policy decisions should not necessarily have good outcomes; but the proposal of them should make you feel good/better than those opposed to them.
But in all honesty so is our country. The fact that Hillary is running for Pres is astounding (and is still a viable candidate).
She should be under criminal investigation (according to 2 IG's) and yet no one cares.
I am back to lurking on the sports board....only 6 weeks until WFU football!
This place is a mess...i have only been lurking for a few weeks, but am astounded by the stupidity here. This quote sums up what I think is going on here: Policy decisions should not necessarily have good outcomes; but the proposal of them should make you feel good/better than those opposed to them.
You're lying.
Why would you accuse the man/woman of lying?
Because he is.
Fine. He may be. Can you tell us what he is lying about and how you know that.
No problem. I just thought if he was going to say he was lying, he should say about what. I am not sure if he is accusing him of lying about the duration of his lurking or whether he is saying that he is a poster that generally uses a different name.