WSJ Crowdsources Investigation of Hillary Clinton Emails
PvtVoid writes: The Wall Street Journal now has a page up that encourages readers to sift through and tag Hillary Clinton's emails on Benghazi. Users can click on suggested tags such as "Heated", "Personal", "Boring", or "Interesting", or supply their own tags. What could possibly go wrong? I'm tagging this story "election2016."
Do you not care because the press doesn't care? Do you not care because you were told there is nothing there? Do you not care because you read up on the timeline of events and decided that the administration and secretary of state acted responsibly? Or do you not care because you are okay with the president and secretary of the state blaming a video for the violence? Are you also okay with pulling the video off of youtube? Are you okay with the overall incompetence this president has exhibited with regards to foreign policy?
Note that she had to get around the entire Cuomo machine to do this. I don't know, go to a state that's overwhelmingly Republican and get yourself elected senator, just being from the right party isn't worth much.
Note that she had to run neck-and-neck with him basically to the convention in order to get to that point, she won 48% of the Democratic popular vote and dozens of states, including New York, Florida and California. I don't know what you mean by "ambassador killed," Issa spent years on the Benghazi committee and got nowhere, he eventually quit and the Speaker had to establish a new select committee just to keep the faux outrage in the news. Stop reading your grandpa's emails.
John Adams: successful attorney of murderous british soldiers. Are you really suggesting that we should hold lawyers in any way accountable for the crimes of their clients? Do some people not deserve lawyers? Or do they only deserve bad ones?
In other words, you got nothing.
Don't blame me, I voted for Baltar.