2016 Presidential Race Topic

Posted by moy23 on 7/25/2015 9:38:00 PM (view original):
Posted by tecwrg on 7/25/2015 9:23:00 PM (view original):
Posted by moy23 on 7/25/2015 9:09:00 PM (view original):
Posted by stinenavy on 7/25/2015 8:56:00 PM (view original):
Moy isn't going to talk positively about Trump anymore.
I like both candidates. I think both would do a good job. Is there a perfect candidate? No.

Walker will defend his record like he did twice in Wisconsin to get reelected. It's a solid track record. Trump is free to say what he wants... That's his shtick and its what's many find appealing about him.
Exactly what makes you think that Trump is a credible candidate?
One - I like businessmen. I liked Mitt for the same reason. I think the government, in particular government waste and redundancy, would be better served from the perspective of people that are pros at minimizing these things. They also know how to turn a profit. We need to export more, not import more. I think he can help here. I also think businessmen understand how to create jobs. Trump has personally created more jobs than any other candidate.

Two - He has a backbone and doesn't beat around the bush. It would be refreshing to see a more 'transparent' president. I also think he'll handle foreign affairs better because he wouldn't be drawing fake red lines in the sand.

Three - He has more practical experience for the job than Cruz, Rubio, and a plethora of other Republican candidates.

Four - he has a track record of success.... You don't become a billionaire without one.


Why do you seem to think a businessman without political experience can't run a country? Many of our first presidents were businessmen first.
So you're a fan of QE?
7/25/2015 9:45 PM
Posted by bad_luck on 7/25/2015 9:44:00 PM (view original):
Posted by moy23 on 7/25/2015 9:23:00 PM (view original):
Posted by dahsdebater on 7/25/2015 7:30:00 PM (view original):
Which supports more economic activity - the Bucks, or the infrastructure systems that had their funding cut so drastically?  What's the value of all economic activity that utilizes shipping on surface roads?  Look that number up for me quickly and then tell me how great it is that he cut funding for infrastructure and spent on the Bucks.
I'm at our lake house in Wisconsin right now. Roads are pretty damn good. MUCH better than Illinois where I live. He curtailed spending in the boondocks of Wisconsin and is going to continue funding the zoo interchange where there is high travel frequency. That makes sense.

To put the $250 million for the bucks in perspective.... Pat Quinn lost the state of Illinois $371 million A YEAR in tax breaks just to keep both Sears and CME in the state. I think the bucks are part of the Milwaukee Brand and that's important to a big city. I live in Chicago and you are a fool if you don't think the Blackhawks aren't bringing in huge revenue for the city and state the last 6 years.
They aren't. Professional sports teams bring huge revenue for themselves. In terms of economic impact, they don't have much impact at all. People don't travel to see sports teams, so it's just locals redirecting entertainment dollars from somewhere else. The jobs that are there are jobs that would exist at restaurants, movie theaters, bars, etc.

If the government has nothing else to do with the money, fine, subsidize away. But if the governor is cutting $400 million from infrastructure and then handing it to a sports team, he's a ******* idiot.

Most of the money that he cut from the infrastructure budget was from the 'complete streets' program (which required bicycle lanes and sidewalks are a part of all state funded highway projects whether it made sense or not) and other WASTEFUL spending on infrastructure including "pedestrian bridges being built less than two blocks away from an existing pedestrian bridge, murals on the bottom of bridges where drivers can't see them, ripping up existing intersections in the middle of nowhere to build roundabouts and building fishing piers with gas tax money."


Also prevailing wage laws were just passed which will save Wisconsin up to $300 million per year in wasteful spending on infrastructure for doing the exact same amount of work. So nothing lost in infrastructure jobs, but big savings none the less.
7/25/2015 10:32 PM (edited)
Posted by bad_luck on 7/25/2015 9:45:00 PM (view original):
Posted by moy23 on 7/25/2015 9:38:00 PM (view original):
Posted by tecwrg on 7/25/2015 9:23:00 PM (view original):
Posted by moy23 on 7/25/2015 9:09:00 PM (view original):
Posted by stinenavy on 7/25/2015 8:56:00 PM (view original):
Moy isn't going to talk positively about Trump anymore.
I like both candidates. I think both would do a good job. Is there a perfect candidate? No.

Walker will defend his record like he did twice in Wisconsin to get reelected. It's a solid track record. Trump is free to say what he wants... That's his shtick and its what's many find appealing about him.
Exactly what makes you think that Trump is a credible candidate?
One - I like businessmen. I liked Mitt for the same reason. I think the government, in particular government waste and redundancy, would be better served from the perspective of people that are pros at minimizing these things. They also know how to turn a profit. We need to export more, not import more. I think he can help here. I also think businessmen understand how to create jobs. Trump has personally created more jobs than any other candidate.

Two - He has a backbone and doesn't beat around the bush. It would be refreshing to see a more 'transparent' president. I also think he'll handle foreign affairs better because he wouldn't be drawing fake red lines in the sand.

Three - He has more practical experience for the job than Cruz, Rubio, and a plethora of other Republican candidates.

Four - he has a track record of success.... You don't become a billionaire without one.


Why do you seem to think a businessman without political experience can't run a country? Many of our first presidents were businessmen first.
So you're a fan of QE?
No idea what QE is
7/25/2015 10:21 PM
Posted by moy23 on 7/25/2015 10:21:00 PM (view original):
Posted by bad_luck on 7/25/2015 9:45:00 PM (view original):
Posted by moy23 on 7/25/2015 9:38:00 PM (view original):
Posted by tecwrg on 7/25/2015 9:23:00 PM (view original):
Posted by moy23 on 7/25/2015 9:09:00 PM (view original):
Posted by stinenavy on 7/25/2015 8:56:00 PM (view original):
Moy isn't going to talk positively about Trump anymore.
I like both candidates. I think both would do a good job. Is there a perfect candidate? No.

Walker will defend his record like he did twice in Wisconsin to get reelected. It's a solid track record. Trump is free to say what he wants... That's his shtick and its what's many find appealing about him.
Exactly what makes you think that Trump is a credible candidate?
One - I like businessmen. I liked Mitt for the same reason. I think the government, in particular government waste and redundancy, would be better served from the perspective of people that are pros at minimizing these things. They also know how to turn a profit. We need to export more, not import more. I think he can help here. I also think businessmen understand how to create jobs. Trump has personally created more jobs than any other candidate.

Two - He has a backbone and doesn't beat around the bush. It would be refreshing to see a more 'transparent' president. I also think he'll handle foreign affairs better because he wouldn't be drawing fake red lines in the sand.

Three - He has more practical experience for the job than Cruz, Rubio, and a plethora of other Republican candidates.

Four - he has a track record of success.... You don't become a billionaire without one.


Why do you seem to think a businessman without political experience can't run a country? Many of our first presidents were businessmen first.
So you're a fan of QE?
No idea what QE is
Not surprised.
7/25/2015 10:40 PM
Posted by moy23 on 7/25/2015 9:38:00 PM (view original):
Posted by tecwrg on 7/25/2015 9:23:00 PM (view original):
Posted by moy23 on 7/25/2015 9:09:00 PM (view original):
Posted by stinenavy on 7/25/2015 8:56:00 PM (view original):
Moy isn't going to talk positively about Trump anymore.
I like both candidates. I think both would do a good job. Is there a perfect candidate? No.

Walker will defend his record like he did twice in Wisconsin to get reelected. It's a solid track record. Trump is free to say what he wants... That's his shtick and its what's many find appealing about him.
Exactly what makes you think that Trump is a credible candidate?
One - I like businessmen. I liked Mitt for the same reason. I think the government, in particular government waste and redundancy, would be better served from the perspective of people that are pros at minimizing these things. They also know how to turn a profit. We need to export more, not import more. I think he can help here. I also think businessmen understand how to create jobs. Trump has personally created more jobs than any other candidate.

Two - He has a backbone and doesn't beat around the bush. It would be refreshing to see a more 'transparent' president. I also think he'll handle foreign affairs better because he wouldn't be drawing fake red lines in the sand.

Three - He has more practical experience for the job than Cruz, Rubio, and a plethora of other Republican candidates.

Four - he has a track record of success.... You don't become a billionaire without one.


Why do you seem to think a businessman without political experience can't run a country? Many of our first presidents were businessmen first.
"I also think he'll handle foreign affairs better because he wouldn't be drawing fake red lines in the sand."

LOL.
7/25/2015 10:42 PM
Posted by moy23 on 7/25/2015 10:32:00 PM (view original):
Posted by bad_luck on 7/25/2015 9:44:00 PM (view original):
Posted by moy23 on 7/25/2015 9:23:00 PM (view original):
Posted by dahsdebater on 7/25/2015 7:30:00 PM (view original):
Which supports more economic activity - the Bucks, or the infrastructure systems that had their funding cut so drastically?  What's the value of all economic activity that utilizes shipping on surface roads?  Look that number up for me quickly and then tell me how great it is that he cut funding for infrastructure and spent on the Bucks.
I'm at our lake house in Wisconsin right now. Roads are pretty damn good. MUCH better than Illinois where I live. He curtailed spending in the boondocks of Wisconsin and is going to continue funding the zoo interchange where there is high travel frequency. That makes sense.

To put the $250 million for the bucks in perspective.... Pat Quinn lost the state of Illinois $371 million A YEAR in tax breaks just to keep both Sears and CME in the state. I think the bucks are part of the Milwaukee Brand and that's important to a big city. I live in Chicago and you are a fool if you don't think the Blackhawks aren't bringing in huge revenue for the city and state the last 6 years.
They aren't. Professional sports teams bring huge revenue for themselves. In terms of economic impact, they don't have much impact at all. People don't travel to see sports teams, so it's just locals redirecting entertainment dollars from somewhere else. The jobs that are there are jobs that would exist at restaurants, movie theaters, bars, etc.

If the government has nothing else to do with the money, fine, subsidize away. But if the governor is cutting $400 million from infrastructure and then handing it to a sports team, he's a ******* idiot.

Most of the money that he cut from the infrastructure budget was from the 'complete streets' program (which required bicycle lanes and sidewalks are a part of all state funded highway projects whether it made sense or not) and other WASTEFUL spending on infrastructure including "pedestrian bridges being built less than two blocks away from an existing pedestrian bridge, murals on the bottom of bridges where drivers can't see them, ripping up existing intersections in the middle of nowhere to build roundabouts and building fishing piers with gas tax money."


Also prevailing wage laws were just passed which will save Wisconsin up to $300 million per year in wasteful spending on infrastructure for doing the exact same amount of work. So nothing lost in infrastructure jobs, but big savings none the less.
"Hey guys, let's cut out some inefficient spending and save ourselves hundreds of millions of dollars!"







"Also, we're probably going to give all that money away to a billionaire NBA team owner. Shhhh."

Seems like a smart move.
7/25/2015 10:44 PM
Boston (CNN)Hillary Clinton's campaign said Saturday morning that she will publicly testify before the House Select Committee on Benghazi on Oct. 22. But a committee spokesman later said the former secretary of state's lawyer was demanding limitations on the questioning, casting doubt over whether she'll appear.

Sounds like somebody's got something she wants to hide.
7/25/2015 10:45 PM
Posted by bad_luck on 7/25/2015 10:44:00 PM (view original):
Posted by moy23 on 7/25/2015 10:32:00 PM (view original):
Posted by bad_luck on 7/25/2015 9:44:00 PM (view original):
Posted by moy23 on 7/25/2015 9:23:00 PM (view original):
Posted by dahsdebater on 7/25/2015 7:30:00 PM (view original):
Which supports more economic activity - the Bucks, or the infrastructure systems that had their funding cut so drastically?  What's the value of all economic activity that utilizes shipping on surface roads?  Look that number up for me quickly and then tell me how great it is that he cut funding for infrastructure and spent on the Bucks.
I'm at our lake house in Wisconsin right now. Roads are pretty damn good. MUCH better than Illinois where I live. He curtailed spending in the boondocks of Wisconsin and is going to continue funding the zoo interchange where there is high travel frequency. That makes sense.

To put the $250 million for the bucks in perspective.... Pat Quinn lost the state of Illinois $371 million A YEAR in tax breaks just to keep both Sears and CME in the state. I think the bucks are part of the Milwaukee Brand and that's important to a big city. I live in Chicago and you are a fool if you don't think the Blackhawks aren't bringing in huge revenue for the city and state the last 6 years.
They aren't. Professional sports teams bring huge revenue for themselves. In terms of economic impact, they don't have much impact at all. People don't travel to see sports teams, so it's just locals redirecting entertainment dollars from somewhere else. The jobs that are there are jobs that would exist at restaurants, movie theaters, bars, etc.

If the government has nothing else to do with the money, fine, subsidize away. But if the governor is cutting $400 million from infrastructure and then handing it to a sports team, he's a ******* idiot.

Most of the money that he cut from the infrastructure budget was from the 'complete streets' program (which required bicycle lanes and sidewalks are a part of all state funded highway projects whether it made sense or not) and other WASTEFUL spending on infrastructure including "pedestrian bridges being built less than two blocks away from an existing pedestrian bridge, murals on the bottom of bridges where drivers can't see them, ripping up existing intersections in the middle of nowhere to build roundabouts and building fishing piers with gas tax money."


Also prevailing wage laws were just passed which will save Wisconsin up to $300 million per year in wasteful spending on infrastructure for doing the exact same amount of work. So nothing lost in infrastructure jobs, but big savings none the less.
"Hey guys, let's cut out some inefficient spending and save ourselves hundreds of millions of dollars!"







"Also, we're probably going to give all that money away to a billionaire NBA team owner. Shhhh."

Seems like a smart move.
MMAC poll says 67% of voters support Bucks arena funding


Part of being a governor is representing the people.
7/25/2015 10:50 PM (edited)
Well, his approval rating is down to 41 percent and dropping like a stone. The people don't seem too happy. 62 percent of his constituents say he shouldn't run for President. 70 percent are against him cutting 300 million from UofW. Cutting K-12 funding by 127 million? 78 percent of Wisconsinites oppose that.



This poll says:


He also defended his proposal to borrow up to $220 million to help pay for a new stadium for the Milwaukee Bucks. The poll asked about support for an alternative plan that would include $150 million in state borrowing. Seventy-nine percent were against it, while 17 percent were for it.


What was that about representing the people?
7/25/2015 11:36 PM
Walker, who is expected to join the race in about two weeks, says the state would lose more than $400 million in revenue if the Bucks leave, as they have threatened unless a new home court is built. He said pitching in for a new arena is a “good deal.”

The plan, which Walker originally proposed in January and then revised last month to put more of the burden on taxpayers, has drawn fire from the Republican-controlled legislature and Walker’s conservative base.

Among the critics are Americans for Prosperity, a group underwritten by Charles and David Koch, who have financially supported Walker’s election campaigns. So did the conservative MacIver Institute, a Madison free-market think tank that’s endorsed most of Walker’s agenda since he came into office in 2011.

The libertarian Cato Institute, based in Washington, says the governor is defending “corporate welfare” on behalf of the NBA.

“Any presidential candidate who believes that taxpayer-subsidized stadiums are a ‘good deal’ shouldn’t be anywhere near the federal treasury,” wrote Executive Vice President David Boaz in a June 8 column.

Fleeing Team

Laurel Patrick, Walker’s press secretary, said the proposal “protects Wisconsin’s taxpayers while balancing state and local support.”

“If a new arena is not constructed by 2017, the Bucks will leave the state,” Patrick said in an e-mail today.

In a statement from his office Monday, Republican Senate Majority Leader Scott Fitzgerald said the proposal would keep an “important economic engine” in Milwaukee.

Arguments over taxpayer funding for arenas and stadiums are decades old, and often end with state and local governments caving in to pressure from team owners. Since the 1980s, states and cities have sold more than $9 billion of debt to finance professional sports facilities.

In Missouri, the future of a proposed $985 million stadium for the National Football League’s St. Louis Rams might hang on a pending court challenge to an ordinance requiring a public vote before tax dollars can be spent on the facility. Just as the Bucks say they are prepared to leave Wisconsin, the Rams, who fled Los Angeles 20 years ago, say they could return to California.

In San Diego, which just a decade ago was considering bankruptcy, politicians are examining the sale of municipal bonds in a football-stadium bidding war to keep the NFL’s Chargers. Minnesota’s Democratic legislature approved $468 million in bonds in 2014 to help finance a new $975 million stadium for the NFL’s Minnesota Vikings.

The Bucks currently play in the 27-year-old BMO Harris Bradley Center in downtown Milwaukee. Standing behind a lectern with a sign that read “Cheaper to Keep Them,” Walker said June 4 that the state would lose money if the team left.

“The price of doing nothing is not zero. It’s $419 million,” the governor said.

The debt in Walker’s proposed budget is less than half that of his predecessor’s last spending plan and is the lowest level in a decade, according to Wisconsin’s nonpartisan Legislative Fiscal Bureau. Wisconsin has about $10 billion in tax-supported debt, 15th among states and the 13th-highest per capita, according to Moody’s Investors Service.

State voters opposed further borrowing for the arena in an April poll conducted by the Marquette Law School. Seventy-nine percent said no to an earlier version of the plan that called for $150 million in taxpayer money, $100 million less than the current plan.

The borrowing proposals are part of the legislative budget logjam in Madison, the state capital. The next fiscal year begins Wednesday and a spending plan hasn’t been approved.

The $250 million in taxpayer-funded borrowing would include $55 million in state bonds; $47 million from the city of Milwaukee; $55 million in bonds from Milwaukee County and $93 million in bonds from Wisconsin Center District. Spread out over 20 years, the borrowing would total about $377 million, according to a report issued Monday by the Wisconsin Legislative Fiscal Bureau.

Earlier legislatures approved taxpayer funding for stadiums housing Major League Baseball’s Milwaukee Brewers and the National Football League’s Green Bay Packers. Precedent, though, doesn’t mollify critics.

“My small city of 15,000 raised $15 million to replace our hospital,” Republican Representative Dean Knudson of Hudson wrote on the conservative website, RightWisconsin.com.

“I am certain Milwaukee can raise $75 million in donations for this new entertainment complex to replace the state funding.”
7/25/2015 11:40 PM
A couple of months ago, I reported that part-time Wisconsin Governor and full-time presidential wannabe Scott Walker and his mini-me, plutocrat and Milwaukee County Emperor Executive Chris Abele were hammering out a deal that would take hundreds of millions of dollars and give it to the new owners of the Milwaukee Bucks so they could build a palatial playground and buy all the land around it for their greater profit. Most of the money that Walker and Abele would give away would come from the poorest of the poor.

As I repeatedly tell the gentle reader, when it comes to all things Walker and/or Abele, there's more. There's always more.

Per the International Business Times, it appears that one man stands to really gain from the bailout of the sports franchise - Jon Hammes. Hammes just happens to be a part owner of the Bucks, a real estate mogul and, oh yeah, the finance co-chair of Walker's presidential campaign:


In the year leading up to the announcement of his presidential campaign, Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker championed a high-profile proposal to spend a quarter of a billion dollars of taxpayer money to help finance a new Milwaukee Bucks arena -- all while pushing to slash roughly the same amount from state funding for higher education. One of those who stands to benefit from the controversial initiative is a longtime Walker donor and Republican financier who has just been appointed by the governor to head his presidential fundraising operation.

Real estate mogul Jon Hammes, who has donated hundreds of thousands of dollars to Republican candidates and causes, is a prominent member of the investor group that owns Milwaukee’s NBA team. Last week CNN reported that he also will serve as the Walker campaign’s national finance co-chairman. Days after that appointment, Walker’s Republican allies in the Wisconsin state Senate backed the governor’s proposal to spend public funds on a new arena for the Bucks.

In his speech announcing his presidential candidacy, Walker presented himself as a free-market conservative and derided what he called a “top-down, government-knows-best approach” to economic policymaking. Hammes serves on the board of a conservative think tank called the Wisconsin Policy Research Institute that says “competitive free markets, limited government, private initiative and personal responsibility are essential to our democratic way of life.”


But under Walker’s proposal, the government would redistribute taxpayer money to a project benefiting Hammes and other Bucks investors.

A representative for Walker defended the proposal, saying in a statement: “Governor Walker's focus is on protecting Wisconsin’s taxpayers from the negative financial impact of losing the Bucks, while balancing state and local support.”

A Walker campaign aide additionally asserted that it was “a dangerous leap” for International Business Times to ask about the propriety of subsidizing a deal in which Hammes could benefit. “The stadium deal has been in the works much longer than he has been involved with the campaign,” the aide said.

However, before Walker proposed the arena deal, Hammes had donated more than $15,000 to his gubernatorial campaigns, according to state campaign finance data. Federal records also show that over the last decade, Hammes has donated almost $280,000 to Republican candidates and third-party groups -- including more than $14,000 to the Wisconsin Republican Party. Hammes Company in 2010 donated $25,000 to the Republican Governors Association, which that year spent heavily in support of Walker's first run for governor. Jon Hammes also contributed $500 to Walker while he was a Milwaukee county executive.

One thing that the reporters missed is that Hammes is also on the long list of people who donated to Walker and benefited from Walker's Wisconsin Economic Development Corporation, whose sole purpose for existence appears to be to reward Walker's supporters with taxpayers' money.

While Abele doesn't have the direct pay for play ties with Hammes that Walker does, there is no doubt a special relationship between the two men. They are on many of the same organization boards, including the Greater Milwaukee Committee, which is nothing more than a country club for plutocrats.

Abele and Hammes also share the same love for plantation economics, which Hammes proved by stating, "No one gives a blank about low-wage workers." When the news came out that Hammes had made this vulgar comment, Abele was the first to rush to his defense.

Ah yes, crony capitalism at its finest - or worst - depending on what side of the 1% you're on.
7/25/2015 11:43 PM
The job creation agency founded by Governor Scott Walker has been routinely violating its own rules and state law, according to a damning report released Friday by Wisconsin’s non-partisan Legislative Audit Bureau.

Walker set up the Wisconsin Economic Development Corporation in 2011 in order to give taxpayer dollars to private corporations to help them create jobs for Wisconsin workers. But a new audit of more than 100 grants from the agency found that the WEDC failed to follow up on whether the companies were actually using the funds to create and retain jobs.

The group also gave loans and tax credits to companies that did not meet its requirements, and did not even attempt to fact-check claims by the companies about the number of jobs they created. Additionally, the agency forgave, wrote off or deferred more than $4 million in loan payments that the corporations were supposed to pay back to the state.

Critics of the Governor, including Democratic Party of Wisconsin Chair Mike Tate, cited the new data as evidence of his “ineptitude…bordering on criminal negligence” and called for legislators to pass reforms.

Since its creation in 2011, the WEDC has been plagued by scandals. An audit in 2013 found the agency repeatedly failed to follow state laws regarding the use of public funds. And in 2014, two corporations that received millions taxpayer funds from the WEDC, Eaton and Plexus, outsourced jobs to Mexico and other foreign countries, and laid off hundreds of Wisconsin workers.

The new report comes as Governor Walker and the legislature struggle to come to agreement on how to address the state’s nearly $2 billion deficit, a problem greatly exacerbated by the corporate tax breaks passed in conjunction with the WEDC’s creation. As he seeks to slash about $300 million from the University of Wisconsin system, Governor Walker has asked for more than $47 million for the WEDC — despite the fact that the latest audit found the group to be sitting on a surplus much larger than what it needs to operate.

Just a few days after the embarrassing report was released, Governor Walker abruptly called for the elimination of the corporate loan program he created and championed. Now, some lawmakers are calling for a federal investigation into the agency’s lending choices, particularly one $500,000 loan to a Milwaukee construction company whose owner had made generous donations to the Governor’s 2010 campaign. Five years later, the company has not paid back the loan and did not create a single job.
7/25/2015 11:45 PM
Posted by The Taint on 7/25/2015 11:37:00 PM (view original):
Well, his approval rating is down to 41 percent and dropping like a stone. The people don't seem too happy. 62 percent of his constituents say he shouldn't run for President. 70 percent are against him cutting 300 million from UofW. Cutting K-12 funding by 127 million? 78 percent of Wisconsinites oppose that.



This poll says:


He also defended his proposal to borrow up to $220 million to help pay for a new stadium for the Milwaukee Bucks. The poll asked about support for an alternative plan that would include $150 million in state borrowing. Seventy-nine percent were against it, while 17 percent were for it.


What was that about representing the people?
The MMAC poll shows 67% of Wisconsin voters would support a new arena "when presented with a complete proposal."

The Marquette poll just asked if one supports borrowing for a new arena in Milwaukee.
7/26/2015 12:49 AM
so when Santa Walker comes and drops his presents, the MMAC poll will be correct. Until then, no one supports it.
7/26/2015 12:59 AM
Posted by tecwrg on 7/25/2015 10:45:00 PM (view original):
Boston (CNN)Hillary Clinton's campaign said Saturday morning that she will publicly testify before the House Select Committee on Benghazi on Oct. 22. But a committee spokesman later said the former secretary of state's lawyer was demanding limitations on the questioning, casting doubt over whether she'll appear.

Sounds like somebody's got something she wants to hide.
She already testified for a different Benghazi committee. This is another group that is nothing more than an Hillary Clinton witchhunt committee. If Hillary wasn't running for President, the committee would disband. She's well within her right to ensure that all questions be actually on the topic of Benghazi.

She requested that the meeting be public, instead of private, because of the hyper partisan selective leaks that Gowdy has made when interviewing other people.
7/26/2015 3:36 AM
◂ Prev 1...39|40|41|42|43...575 Next ▸
2016 Presidential Race Topic

Search Criteria

Terms of Use Customer Support Privacy Statement

© 1999-2025 WhatIfSports.com, Inc. All rights reserved. WhatIfSports is a trademark of WhatIfSports.com, Inc. SimLeague, SimMatchup and iSimNow are trademarks or registered trademarks of Electronic Arts, Inc. Used under license. The names of actual companies and products mentioned herein may be the trademarks of their respective owners.