>>1982992 (PB)
THEY aren't 100% evil, are they?
Personally, I do like TG a lot, based on the committees he chooses to join.
I'm also super fond of his style of inquiry.
Having said that: If he's not SCOTUS-bound, my confidence in the strength of the folks on the List is solid.
We'll see what happens on the 9th.
Trump does have an interesting way of bringing attention to people/things.
Did you know:
Trump is not exactly a Conservative?
Also: If we need IBOR we need to acknowledge that the UN's Bill of Human Rights (article 19 comes to mind off the top of my head) has been an absolute failure.
As has the US Bill of Rights.
This is purely conjecture, speculation, and wine:
As sad as it is to consider, what if going whole hog on Benghazi would have muffed up a long-term effort to address a grossly (in all ways) more harmful thing?
I'm missing what you mean by "go back to that".
My current understanding is that you are asking if Benghazi can be re-addressed at some point in the future, if the larger goal was to capture the Beast.
IF that is what you're saying, then my answer would be "Benghazi might fall under an entirely different category of criminality/negligence
and IF that IS the case, it will have far more severe penalties than were originally considered".
Suggesting that POTUS "owns everyone" is kind of misleading - it sort of implies that he has bought people (in the non-human trafficking way), doesn't it?
Is there another way to describe what I think you're describing?