I have two questions about the email controversy

[merrily]

84. That was a very nice reply.

Because you are a Hillary supporter and I am not, I think we may have very different views of past investigations of the Clintons, how evidence and witnesses were handled, how witnesses behaved, and what "doesn't pan out" means. Even with all that, I think it's clear that the Paula Jones lawsuit was not frivolous, that a sitting President perjured himself before a grand jury that Susan McDougal accepted a sentence of 18 months in prison rather than answer just 3 questions about Bill Clinton, that the testimony of Jim McDougal was suspect at best, and that Hillary Clinton has now TWICE sorted through evidence for two or more years before turning it over, once as First Lady after receiving a subpoena of law firm billing records (so no excuse about her daughter's wedding or her mother's funeral there--law firm records are not personal--and once as former Secretary of state. If witnesses, including a President, don't tell the truth and evidence is so carefully sifted through before being turned over, guess what? A prosecutor is going to have a very tough time coming up with enough evidence to prosecute. That does not mean no wrongdoing occurred.