[A link to the NR? I don’t think so. People can go watch the 11 hours of hearings and find out their own interesting 11 minutes on their own.]

“From the ultra-liberal Huffington Post: “Therefore, below are 10 questions that need to be addressed ….”

They publish only that which is observed to be true, therefore they are liberal?

One email from Ms Clinton’s email server shows a crime has been committed:

http://www.occupydemocrats.com/newly-released-clinton-email-proves-bush-blair-plotted-iraq-war-a-year-before-launching-it/

“Clearly she used a time machine to go back just far enough to avoid the law.

It’s probably the same one used to plant President Obama’s fake birth certificate and false birth announcements in Hawaii’s government and newspapers.”

Maybe the same time machine also moved Hawai’i out of Kenya and in to the Pacific.

“Therefore, below are 10 questions that need to be addressed before America puts this latest email controversy to rest. Once these questions are answered, the email saga will end.”
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/h-a-goodman/with-clintons-private-server-break-laws_b_8144564.html

And note that the above doesn’t even cover questions about specifics such as Benghazi, Sidney Blumenthal, Cheryl Mills, the Clinton Foundation.

The Republican Party’s claim is that Ms Clinton violated a law that didn’t exist at the time

Clearly she used a time machine to go back just far enough to avoid the law.

It’s probably the same one used to plant President Obama’s fake birth certificate and false birth announcements in Hawaii’s government and newspapers.

“For those who are perplexed about my referring to the Hillary email situation as a scandal….”

Heh! The Republican Party’s claim is that Ms Clinton violated a law that didn’t exist at the time. Hilarious!

There is no evidence Ms. Clinton, or her staff, committed any “email scandal.”

Are you also upset about the Bush2 Email Scandal? You know: when Bush2 deleted almost 22,000,000 emails to prevent them from being given to the Department of Justice? How upset are you about that? Or is it okay when homicidal fascists do it?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bush_White_House_email_controversy

a) In the past he has never read an article he has referenced
b) The New York Times is not as sleazy as Breitbart, his favorite hangout
c) The Times’ writers tend to use words with more than one syllable, and past performance has shown that that complexity has been beyond the ability of sn to grasp

In any case, there is nothing in that article to hint that the investigation will approach the president: it centers on the fact that some former FBI agents are upset about his comments, and states that some current agents could be as well.

As mentioned late in the article, agents were equally upset when (then) President Bush stated that he believed DeLay was innocent of the charges against him – for the same reason: injecting political language into an ongoing investigation.

Is anyone surprised that sn has grossly misrepresented an article, presenting what is, in essence, another lie? Anyone? Bueller?

http://www.cnn.com/2015/09/03/politics/hillary-clinton-email-controversy-explained-2016/