What evidence is there, other than the current conjecture that keeps floating around, that this was a cover up? Obama had a mathematical advantage of winning before election season even started. Those people who would be interested in a fake scandal like this were not likely to vote for him anyways. If it was a cover up, his cover was blown in a matter of days, and he still won by a significant margin. And if it was a cover up, you would not know it was a cover up. The only person this hurts is Clinton's chances of election in 2016. And I doubt this will even have an effect that far out. No ones getting impeached. No one is gonna get canned other than the people that already quit.
Media circus. Grab your pitchforks, we're drumming up controversy. And part of me doesn't even think they're doing it on purpose. I believe some of them actually believe there's a controversy, and some just want to burn down the administration for whatever reason. With each subsequent circus attraction, GOP digs theirselves deeper and deeper into obscurity. Hopefully so much that a moderate faction emerges which pushes the democrats back left of right center.
Are they not allowed to have personal attorneys now?4. If there isnt some type of coverup at the State Dept, why are all the witnesses using private lawyers and not state dept ones? Why are there so many stories about intimidation? Why have we not heard the recordings from the coms between the FAST team and SOCOM?




					
						
					
						

					
					
					
						
  Reply With Quote