Now I see why so many of your comrades have written you off as a kook.
You clearly must be new here.
A staff position is not power.
I'm sorry, but that's simply incorrect. The Director of the CIA is power. You stated - let me quote - 'he has no power'. That is factually incorrect.
An elected position is power. You can fire the director of the CIA. You can't fire a Senator or the President. Once he was fired, he had NO power.
Got it, so now I see you're waffling. Or falling prey to your own baffling meandering. You originally stated
he has no power. Now you want to say (or either meant to originally say) that his power isn't the same as Clinton's. Two different arguments. Got it.
And 2 mil is nothing. A good Wall Street defense team would cost several times that in retainers and fees. Real power is measured in hundreds of millions and billions. Those are the people who have impunity. Not some staffer who's net worth is mostly tied up in his house.
Oh, I see. Again, as before. You said simply he has 'no money' but now you intend to change that to "umm, well, he has some money, but not the same amount Clinton has."
Got it again LOL.
Where in there did I say it was "ok"? I said it was feasible, which it is. He has no independent power base. He's not elected to office, he's not independently wealthy, he has no politicians in his pocket. He's an easy target and an easy scapegoat. Not that it matters, but he was also guilty as sin. As a soldier, I hate to see my branch of service besmirched like that. But he should have stayed out of politics. Never bring a knife to a gun fight.
You never said anything was
feasible. The word, until this post, isn't on this page.
What you did was what you love to falsely accuse me of. Instead of addressing the issue at hand - why Clinton is a felon - you instead divert to Wall Street bankers (a joke of a diversion by the way and non-comparable, taking the discussion from a politician to the banking community. That, as you said, is apples and oranges).
And what you did with your diversion and avoiding the original topic was to infer, very directly, is that Clinton shouldn't be charged because "How many Wall Street bankers went to jail?" The obvious inference being "if they didn't go to jail, why should she?" That is the same thing as saying, in your mind, it is ok.
Not that it matters, but he was also guilty as sin.
Please do justify how him sharing some SAP information with one person is 'guilty as sin' but being the Secretary of State of the United States of America and storing SAP information on a server (an illegal server) in a bathroom in Colorado and removing Classified restrictions from said emails is not 'guilty as sin?' How is a CIA Director violating a non-disclosure 'guilty as sin' but the Secretary of State violating the exact same non-disclosure not guilty as sin?
The blunt fact is, she has broken the law. What she has done is a felony. You, nor anyone, can argue otherwise. It is unarguable.
You've allowed us to digress. Let's get back to the core point I made. Because she is a Democrat and because of the media, she will not be indicted. She is protected, no matter her illegalities, because she's a Dem. That is the point. If a Repbulican had been the Secretary of State and done what Clinton did, he'd have been indicted a long time ago. There would never have been a circus of slowly releasing the emails to the public and him running around making jokes about wiping a server clean with a towel.
That is how this world works, you know it.
