Some people just seem to have a deathwish.
The fix is in.
Can't they find somebody more credible to lead the charge against Hillary than an ex-cocaine addict, communist sympathesizer, and con artist like Peter Paul?
Honestly, from my perspective, what we should really be highlighting is that the Clintons stooped so low as to associate with this type of shady character.
This all smells like a trap to me. Have Peter Paul organize the opposition to her, and build a high profile in the media (like SBVT). Then a mysterious file is handed to the NY Times, exposing some sort of illicit activity by Peter Paul, and Hillary's critics are "discredited."
That would be the first time Hillary's been "under" anything since Vince Foster went toes up. Even if she's made to testify, she'll not recall anything and somehow redirect questioning into political rhetoric. She'll also be under medical care at the time for possible breast cancer, and female plumbing treatments which until now we thought was limited to warm blooded mamals.
I think we all know what happens when Hillary testifies: "I don't recall....um, well...um...I don't recall....um....again... I don't recall...."
Yeah ... that's it ... under oath. Hillary (zero recall) Clinton wouldn't dare lie under oath.
She is to important to do something as mundane as appear at this witch hunt. Witch Hunt?
What good would it do to have Hillary testify. She wouldn't be able to remember a thing!
myway1
Bwaahaaahaaaa!
"... I have no specific recollection..."
"... I do not remember..."
"... I cannot recall..."
"... this does not sound familiar to me..."
"... it was so long ago I..."
"... I cannot remember..."
In other words, Hillary on the stand is a waste of time.