>It is amusing when Party A demonizes Party B, and immediately disagrees with everything Party B says...but when one member of Party B makes a statement (true or false) that can be used to discredit Party B....Party A immediately pounces on it, declares "game over", and somehow paints Party B's single statement as either a huge Freudian slip or that Party B member "was the single voice of reason".
>

When A always disagrees with B and vice versa,

A disagreeing with B or vice versa is dog bites man.
A agreeing with B is man biting dog.



>Also,..the FBI seized four State Department servers last week....would the FBI go to the trouble for something that was a baseless right-wing witch hunt?
>

I don't have a clue.



>
>As for H.C. herself, if what Trey Gowdy recently said is correct, there (supposedly) are documented communications between H.C. and Sidney Blumenthal...specifically, that Blumenthal had business interests in Libya that would benefit from the new govt....and that Hillary used her private email account to pass along the identity of one of the CIA’s top Libyan intelligence sources. Hillary had already been instructed (repeatedly and firmly) by the White House NOT to work with Blumenthal.
>
>Gowdy is talking about releasing these emails in the next week. If he does (and if he's correct), this is extremely damaging for H.C....and validates the increased interest of the committee targeting H.C.
>
>Are the Rs on the Committee salivating right now at the prospect of bringing H.C. down? Of course. You can't take the politics out of politics. But I ask anyone to challenge the core findings of the committee so far. And given how much she's distancing herself from the White House (Syria, TPP, etc.) it's not hard to imagine that the current administration won't hesitate to continue with an investigation and possible indictment.
>
>Personally, I don't want to see her indicted. I just want to see the truth come out. Let the American people judge her in the elections.

Hmm that all sounds remarkably like stains on a blue dress.



The dems were almost as bad when they were in power. They had hearings ad nauseum about poor Alberto Gonzales, who never knew what hit him.
The hearings had no legislative or legitimate oversight purpose- the dems just wanted to embarrass a Bush appointee, and they did because he made some awful blunders on TV.
That doesn't make someone a bad person, just a clumsy speaker.

The difference was that the dems weren't up against the Clinton machine then.

As I said, the repubs are playing the Clintons' game and they are tyroes.

That's what people do when they're terrified to suggest any original policies, or in fact agreed with the most egregious errors the target made and can't attack them.