I love these cute little fucks that think they are presenting some stellar argument by breaking it up disputing it point by point. Ultimately the time leading up to charges actually being filed. Is irrelevant. Because again as I trying to point out the American people are dumb. The issue regarding Bill's impeachment (which is what he and his wife share) is that he/they lied under oath. The issue the general public cared about was the actual BJ... right or wrong is/was irrelevant. To this day people don't understand why he was impeached. It had NOTHING to do with the BJ, and everything to do with the fact that he lied about. But just as Hilary's popularity has grown in the polls despite damning information against her. It wasn't until recently that she even dipped in the polls. Because there are a few of us (clearly very few) that recognize while the FBI chose not to recommend criminal prosecution. She did indeed have confidential information in her e-mails, and she lied about it. She also had prior knowledge of the Benghazi thread... another fact she lied about.
*Prosecute*
YOUR OWN FUCKING LINK! You are literally just making shit up. Do you not know how to read graphs or what. I mean it says RIGHT FUCKING THERE... HIGHEST of 73% ending in 1998? Why did it drop? Because the charges being brought (for people with a brain) proved undeniably that he had in fact lied, and if he is willing to lie about something so inconsequential, what else is he willing to lie about?
In a thread about Bernie... I don't really have to defend this. Recent events are enough to at least throw suspicion on the authenticity or whether or not it is free of fraud.
The point being twofold:
(1) Websites like this may not have even been fully established at that point. Meaning this information was likely compiled after the fact. Since it is a .com website aka for profit. There is potential for bias. A person compiling said data may have ulterior motives.
(2) Polling was done quite differently back in 1999, then it is now. You can bet your ass if in 2016 they are presenting polling results inaccurately/fraudulently that they were back in 1999. We just weren't able to catch them on it.
Its not a false assessment. It was front page news for over year. Everyone had an opinion about it.
Whereas this e-mail scandal no one cares about. How is that a false assessment. Not one Hillary supporter in this thread has even validated it as a real issue. Head in the sand....
- - - Updated - - -
They are not mutually exclusive. They are connected events.
One cannot PROVE without a reasonable doubt that the "leaked" e-mail directly influenced the events at Benghazi. But given the crucial and specific information in those e-mails and the specific sequence of events that occurred in Benghazi. It is likely that one influenced the other. But I will concede that is speculation, pretty damn good speculation. If you are simply willing to write it off... well again you know where your head is at.
The e-mails DO prove that she had prior knowledge of the threat of attack, and that she CHOSE not to act on that knowledge.
She lied about that critical piece of information being there to begin with.
As such, the e-mails both prove that she is incompetent and a liar.