Obama's administration had a caviler attitude about government records. They had the power to make evidence disappear so that's what they did.
I mean, a power entity uses their power... does this surprise us? Do we think somehow there is an entity in power that is somehow beyond human vices? Everyside says their guy is the best. I know you've heard this hundreds of thousands of times in your life... Also, the link is an attack piece, it's goal is not to simply relay information... I don't like that... I didn't like it with President Clinton, I didn't like it with President Bush, I didn't like it with President Obama and I do not like it with President Trump. I am not saying the information is false, only that this is presented in visceral ways... I don't like that, because that is manipulative. I mean, bienvenidos though, welcome to the story that's been repeated since our conception... "Our guy is the best, you're guy is the worst. I have the solution, they are causing the problem. We good, they bad... *rabble rabble... *rabble rabble".
An "attack piece"? I guess I need you to point to the attack part. Did you actually read it? Seems like a straight forward account. Show me what I missed?
Yes I did read it, I suppose attack piece is not the right word, but, I learned nothing beyond what we all learned during the last presidential election, and some of us knew, or at least believed, before. The only citation within this piece, beyond the Wikipedia page concerning the Presidential and Federal Records Act, was just... the wording was so bad, to me: Clinton-Email v. Trump-Russia: Tale of Two Investigations & Double Standard | National Review Lipscomb's piece, seems to be essentially, "y'all don't forget about the Clinton's, you know they bad". That is how I read it, and hey, I jive with that. Regardless of any benefit the Clinton's bring, the shit they've pulled and keep pulling shouldn't shrugged off. In all fairness, this is a biased reaction from me. Go look at our Presidents Twitter feed around this time, and search "Clinton". Also, because of the piece Lipscomb's cited, it leads me to assume he is writing from visceral perspective. When I read these pieces that do not add anything to a story, only keeps it going, I always assume there is a deeper reason of distraction there. And that is why, I suppose, I do not like how the authors generally write these pieces. Again, their job is to have a catch for their audience, they have to interest and entice... I'm just not a fan of it for these types of consequential things, because I always assume there is a deeper reason beyond the sake of information and posterity. Again, that is a bias, but that bias is founded on continually repeated events.
This piece was mostly about documents that were newly discovered missing. While we may agree on your overall point, your synopsis of this article is pretty much bullshit and your posts about it are actually a better example of your point than the article was.
Eh, maybe, but I just read it again, and did not read anything, of substance, I did not know, prior to 2018. But that's been over a year, I could be mixing up when I learned of certain things.
...and I just realized, this thread is also from last year... mea culpa, I did not notice the time stamp.
It's from earlier this month but I can perfectly understand why you would think that this was from a few years ago. Some on here are obsessed with Obama.
The beans are still being spilled. I will say what I said back in 2010. Obama and his administration will be known as the most corrupt administration in USA history.