Immunity for ex-staffer who set up Clinton email server

I like this version of Don Jimmy. He feigns anger much better than he fakes civility.

I'm still baffled over why some believe that DonDiego is so special to qualify for a Hillary speech at the "bargain basement" fee of $350,000.

Sorry to quote myself DonDiego, but if you answered my question I didn't catch it.

How can Hillary's statement that their job was to "figure out what happened," square with your claim that her testimony showed she "doesn't care why the US personnel in Benghazi were killed?"

Seriously, SARCASM!? WOW. How completely foolish can any person want to be? You equate moi' with a statement made by boiler(which I always thought was not the brightest statement to make), especially on multiple occasions. I would never make such a statement. EVER. Then you try and worm your way out of it by retro labeling it "sarcasm" and saying I hold Dems and Rep.s to different standards. First off, I don't even identify myself Rep., all the little tests and polls and whatnots pin me pretty much square in the center with a leaning towards libertarian. Trust me, I despise ALL politicians regardless of flavor, that are immoral, unetchical and corrupt. Again show me ONE person that I've defended to support your little "Jatki is too dumb to get sarcasm" claim. Sheesh.

Now You've drug me down here in the depths normally reserved for and your lover quarrels with some others. I'm done, any further BS you make up I believe will be pretty obvious, have at it lurker dave.

DonDiego will type slower for forkushV.

The Secretary of State said she intended to figure out what happened and prevent it ever happening again.

DonDiego realizes she intended for her remarks to imply she was concerned about why US personnel were killed.

forkushv believes she meant it, . . . and cares why the Americans were killed.
DonDiego believes she did not, . . . and will say/do anything to make herself look good and advance her career.
"To disagree one doesn't have to be disagreeable." __ Barry M. Goldwater

If, in fact, she did care:

i. Has She "figured out what happened" as was her "job"?
Does She believe there was an attack because demonstrators were angry over a propaganda video, as Her State Department spokespersons repeatedly claimed immediately after the carnage and many times since?
Or does She believe it was because "guys [were] out for a walk one night [and] decided to go kill some Americans" as she speculated in the Benghazi hearing?
Or does she believe it was a well-planned attack/assassination carried out by an Islamist group?

ii. Has She done everything necessary to "prevent it from ever happening again" as was her "job"?

Just saying She wanted to do something does not mean She intended to do something or that She has since done something. And just saying something does not mean She believes it.

DonDiego believes She doesn't care, but She will say whatever She needs to say to remain in a position of power and achieve ever greater positions of power, . . . oh and money too.

And here I was thinking we had a Department of Justice, and Department of Defense charged with bringing terrorists to justice. Who knew it was the responsibility of the Secretary of State. These boards are so edjumicational.

Let's line up two of DonDiego's statements re: Benghazi:

"Hillary was so eloquent in noting she doesn't care why the US personnel in Benghazi were killed..."

"The Secretary of State said she intended to figure out what happened and prevent it ever happening again."

So it's not a question of whether DonDiego is dishonest, it's which DonDiego is dishonest. I vote for the first one.

HUH? um.. WHAT? two different statements that were independent of each other. What about this don't you understand?

BillyR. Sure, it's absolutely possible to learn from these boards, all depends if ones mind is open enough or prefers the sand. I've learned from a few different people here, even forky(altho I hate to admit that one ).

Both the statements above are true.
She stated it makes no difference why they were killed.
She stated it was her job to figure out what happened.

Here is the relevant quote:
"With all due respect, the fact is we had four dead Americans. Was it because of a protest or was it because of guys out for a walk one night who decided that they’d they go kill some Americans? What difference at this point does it make?"

A quick review:
DonDiego believes why they were killed is important.
DonDiego believes figuring out what happened should include the motive. i.e. why they were killed.
There is no inconsistency in these beliefs.
[Does forkushV agree or disagree with DonDiego's beliefs?]
[n.b. DonDiego can say what he believes with confidence.]

The Secretary of State said it does not make a difference why they were killed.
The Secretary of State said her job is to figure out what happened.
There is an inconsistency in these statements, only if one believes why they were killed is important in figuring out what happened. If, as the Secretary of State said "it makes no difference [why they were killed]" the inconsistency is resolved, but the "figuring out what happened" is likely to be deficient. Perhaps She would prefer the figuring out be deficient.
[Does forkushV believe figuring out what happened should include why they were killed or does he believe why they were killed does not make a difference?]
[n.b. DonDiego cannot say what the Secretary of State believes, only what she said.]

DonDiego is consistent and truthful.
Ms. Clinton is inconsistent and/or lying and/or incompetent.

1. ability to answer questions on how the server was set up at clinton's home and WHO at State knew about the server.

2. The deletion of emails, how, when and whom deleted them.

3. Access to server, who had access and what was the process of sending emails to clinton.

These be just a few....