• Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

Dem. Rep. Keeps Bringing Up Colin Powell While Discussing Hillary’s Emails And Chris Wallace Has Had

Revmitchell

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter


During a “Fox News Sunday” interview about the Office of Inspector General report on Hillary Clinton’s handling of emails, Democratic Rep. Adam Schiff repeatedly brought up former Sec. of State Colin Powell, irritating Fox host Chris Wallace, who called the California congressman’s argument a red herring.


“What we do know from the OIG report is that there were a couple of attempts to hack into the system that were unsuccessful,” Schiff said. “So we don’t know if there’s any evidence of the successful breach. But I do want to get back to the point that I wanted to finish and that Senator Lankford mentioned and that is the comparison to Secretary Powell is–”

That struck a nerve with Wallace, who had called Schiff out earlier in the interview for mentioning Powell’s email use and comparing it with Clinton’s.

“I’m sorry. Hillary Clinton’s running for president. Colin Powell is not running for president,” Wallace said, interrupting the congressman. “The rules in 2004 were completely different. They’re complete different guidelines. The guidelines were repeatedly strengthened in 2005, 2006 and 2011. Hillary Clinton was operating in a different world. Can we please stay to the issue of what Hillary Clinton did or didn’t do and not talk about Colin Powell?”



Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2016/05/29/d...d-chris-wallace-has-had-enough/#ixzz4ABuIFRSQ
 

Zaac

Well-Known Member
The only red herring is Chris Wallace's weak attempt to try to frame the conversation absent the obvious same behavior from previous SOSs Powell and Rice. All ignoring the similar behavior from the two GOP SOSs does is reinforce why no one outside of the radical right really cares about the emails.

It's a witchhunt designed to thwart Clinton's Presidential endeavors just as the GOP admitted with Benghazi.

So big yawn!
sleepy-smiley.gif
 

carpro

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
The only red herring is Chris Wallace's weak attempt to try to frame the conversation absent the obvious same behavior from previous SOSs Powell and Rice. All ignoring the similar behavior from the two GOP SOSs does is reinforce why no one outside of the radical right really cares about the emails.

It's a witchhunt designed to thwart Clinton's Presidential endeavors just as the GOP admitted with Benghazi.

So big yawn!
sleepy-smiley.gif


You do love Hillary, don't.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Zaac

Well-Known Member
Says BBs very own Hillary champion.

Gosh, it's well known that I don't "champion" anyone who doesn't display a love for Jesus and their neighbors out of the overflow. Or who are in favor of murdering babies inside the womb or murdering adults outside the womb.

So your aversion to truth once again shines through.

It is however a well known thing that you champion Donald Trump.
this-man-is-a-pathological-liar-ted-cruz-explodes-at-donald-trump-after-trump-goes-after-his-father.jpg


Might explain why you're so drawn to him.
 

Don

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
The only red herring is Chris Wallace's weak attempt to try to frame the conversation absent the obvious same behavior from previous SOSs Powell and Rice. All ignoring the similar behavior from the two GOP SOSs does is reinforce why no one outside of the radical right really cares about the emails.

It's a witchhunt designed to thwart Clinton's Presidential endeavors just as the GOP admitted with Benghazi.

So big yawn!
sleepy-smiley.gif
As was stated, certain rules were in effect during Powell and Rice. Those rules changed when Clinton was in the office.

Any aide worth their salt notified her of the changes, because they would have done their best to keep her out of trouble. Any IT person setting up the server worth their salt would have notified the aide(s), or her directly, of the changes and requirements.

Yes, it's a witch hunt. But she did something wrong. And as you're fond of pointing out, even the "little sins" make us unworthy. Or, as a more modern colloqialism goes, "he who is too big for the little things, is too small for the big ones."
 

Zaac

Well-Known Member
As was stated, certain rules were in effect during Powell and Rice. Those rules changed when Clinton was in the office.

The only rules that have changed are the ones that they keep attempting to use by making things classified after the fact.

By the rules they are attempting to use, the previous SOSs should be guilty also.

Any aide worth their salt notified her of the changes, because they would have done their best to keep her out of trouble. Any IT person setting up the server worth their salt would have notified the aide(s), or her directly, of the changes and requirements.

Yes, it's a witch hunt. But she did something wrong. And as you're fond of pointing out, even the "little sins" make us unworthy. Or, as a more modern colloqialism goes, "he who is too big for the little things, is too small for the big ones."

I'm also fond of pointing out that if something is wrong, then apply the wrong consistently. This is nothing but another Benghazi type attempt to embarrass Hillary Clinton because she's running for President and the GOP has got to do everything it can to try and stop her.

It makes a whole lot of folks look really stupid and little that this much time and federal tax dollars have been used to look at whether or not she broke some inane Code of Federal Regulations law by exclusively using her own server and blah blah blah.

This continues to be beyond foolish.
 

Don

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
The only rules that have changed are the ones that they keep attempting to use by making things classified after the fact.
You'll have to be more specific. What things were in her emails/on her personal email server that are now "classified after the fact"?

By the rules they are attempting to use, the previous SOSs should be guilty also.
So if the speed limit changes to a lower speed, you and I should be given tickets for previously going higher than the new speed limit?

I'm also fond of pointing out that if something is wrong, then apply the wrong consistently. This is nothing but another Benghazi type attempt to embarrass Hillary Clinton because she's running for President and the GOP has got to do everything it can to try and stop her.

It makes a whole lot of folks look really stupid and little that this much time and federal tax dollars have been used to look at whether or not she broke some inane Code of Federal Regulations law by exclusively using her own server and blah blah blah.

This continues to be beyond foolish.
And responding to foolishness, especially the way you do it, kinda makes you look foolish.... (Prov 26:4)
 

Zaac

Well-Known Member
You'll have to be more specific. What things were in her emails/on her personal email server that are now "classified after the fact"?


So if the speed limit changes to a lower speed, you and I should be given tickets for previously going higher than the new speed limit?


And responding to foolishness, especially the way you do it, kinda makes you look foolish.... (Prov 26:4)

You'll have to consult with her lawyers on that. I'm not inclined to list what of 44000 emails was reclassified after the fact. But it is on record if I'm not mistaken.

A s for the speed limit, that's exactly what they are attempting to do. They are trying to charge her for speeding when she was within the lawful limit before it changed.

As for you thinking the proverb supplies to my responses. It would obviously have to reply to yours also.

Sent from my SGH-M919 using Tapatalk
 
Top