washamericom
Gold Member
- Jun 19, 2010
- 13,703
- 1,908
- 245
- Banned
- #1
this is from the benedict arnold gazette: http://www.nytimes.com/2015/08/15/u...l-to-hillary-clinton-at-state-department.html
just so we are clear, when the email chain of custody belonged to hillary, the top secret nature of those emails became top secret after the fact. they were never top secret until retroactively. is that a fair assumption/explanation ??
how many emails has this whitehouse burned (including all cabinet elements), is that number even known, or available for foia??
if not, then don't we have a shadow government ? can we trust our doj (fbi) after holder ??
what's next ? taxation without representation, or do we have that now ??
just so we are clear, when the email chain of custody belonged to hillary, the top secret nature of those emails became top secret after the fact. they were never top secret until retroactively. is that a fair assumption/explanation ??
how many emails has this whitehouse burned (including all cabinet elements), is that number even known, or available for foia??
if not, then don't we have a shadow government ? can we trust our doj (fbi) after holder ??
what's next ? taxation without representation, or do we have that now ??