Originally Posted by Guest

Can anyone please explain to me what 43 GOP Senators felt was a legitimate reason to not consent to the nomination of Lynch? Other than general hatred of Obama. Isn't it the role of the Senate to determine whether the nominee is qualified for the job, has an appropriate skill set and temperament? I can see voting against a nominee based on some wild ideology that nominee may hold. What is Lynch's wild ideology?

If you are really that interested, why not write to all 43 Senators and ask them?

Originally Posted by Guest

You don't need the AG to be involved in any Clinton issues. The House will certainly have twenty or thirty committees investigate, issue reports that they can find no evidence of wrong doing, then appoint new committees to investigate the same thing over and over. And perhaps the Speaker can shed a tear over that lack of any quid pro quo.

You forgot to add something about Rev. Sharpton to this post. I think he was they guy who smuggled the cash into the state department.

Clinton couldn't keep his pennis in his pants. Other than that his administration may be the most successful scandal free and economically beneficial 8 years since Ike. And no one was constantly checking on Ike. What was Bill's approval rating when he left office? Oh , it was the highest of any President since Gallup began polling. So whatever it was that the Clintons gave America, America liked it.

I'm always intrigued by the moral tradeoff so many are willing to make. The Clinton Crime Family can pretty much run amok (morally, financially, politically) but as long as they talk the liberal talk, and deliver on at least some of it, people are ok.

It occurs to me that is one genius scam and no one can deny that it works. It just stinks is all.

Originally Posted by Guest

I'm always intrigued by the moral tradeoff so many are willing to make. The Clinton Crime Family can pretty much run amok (morally, financially, politically) but as long as they talk the liberal talk, and deliver on at least some of it, people are ok.

It occurs to me that is one genius scam and no one can deny that it works. It just stinks is all.

And the scams and corruption will continue...business as usual with the Clintons.

Still waiting for a Clinton supporter to speak to why it is OK with them.
No name calling required.
No party line abuse talk.
Just state why what the Clintons do that trips far too many illegal, untrustworthy alarm bells is OK with them.

Originally Posted by Guest

I'm always intrigued by the moral tradeoff so many are willing to make. The Clinton Crime Family can pretty much run amok (morally, financially, politically) but as long as they talk the liberal talk, and deliver on at least some of it, people are ok.

It occurs to me that is one genius scam and no one can deny that it works. It just stinks is all.

Despite your strong words, I am still awaiting the crimes of which the Clinton are guilty. Oh there is the crime of beating Bush I in 1992, of beating Dole in 1996, of leaving office with the highest approval rating of any President, the crime of being beloved by the middle class, of continuing to serve the world, and yes the crime of capitalism by gaining some wealth from books, personal appearances at inflated prices, and being famous. The crime of Hillary winning the US Senate race twice from New York which was not really her home state, the crime of serving as Secretary of state and restoring confidence in the US as a world leader that had been destroyed by the previous administration, and the crime of potentially being the next President. Call out the Swift Boats. By the way, most of the Democrats I know feel that the Third Way approach of the Clintons is far too illiberal. I would greatly prefer an unapologetic progressive as President. There is nothing but practicality in the Clinton governance.

Originally Posted by Guest

Despite your strong words, I am still awaiting the crimes of which the Clinton are guilty. Oh there is the crime of beating Bush I in 1992, of beating Dole in 1996, of leaving office with the highest approval rating of any President, the crime of being beloved by the middle class, of continuing to serve the world, and yes the crime of capitalism by gaining some wealth from books, personal appearances at inflated prices, and being famous. The crime of Hillary winning the US Senate race twice from New York which was not really her home state, the crime of serving as Secretary of state and restoring confidence in the US as a world leader that had been destroyed by the previous administration, and the crime of potentially being the next President. Call out the Swift Boats. By the way, most of the Democrats I know feel that the Third Way approach of the Clintons is far too illiberal. I would greatly prefer an unapologetic progressive as President. There is nothing but practicality in the Clinton governance.

It's still early in the investigative process. Let's see how it lay out. As a side note, The Clintons are filing ammended tax returns for the last 5 years. Is this the next shoe to drop? We shall see.

Originally Posted by Guest

Despite your strong words, I am still awaiting the crimes of which the Clinton are guilty. Oh there is the crime of beating Bush I in 1992, of beating Dole in 1996, of leaving office with the highest approval rating of any President, the crime of being beloved by the middle class, of continuing to serve the world, and yes the crime of capitalism by gaining some wealth from books, personal appearances at inflated prices, and being famous. The crime of Hillary winning the US Senate race twice from New York which was not really her home state, the crime of serving as Secretary of state and restoring confidence in the US as a world leader that had been destroyed by the previous administration, and the crime of potentially being the next President. Call out the Swift Boats. By the way, most of the Democrats I know feel that the Third Way approach of the Clintons is far too illiberal. I would greatly prefer an unapologetic progressive as President. There is nothing but practicality in the Clinton governance.

With your post, and particularly the willful blindnees and saying you see NOTHING wrong or questionable with the Clintons behavior (WTF??? I'm speechless!!) I have to give you the much sought after award ... poster boy for self-denial.

You're also making my point ...as long as the Clinton's deliver the goods, you're ok with them. Un-F***ing-believable but no doubt true.

Originally Posted by Guest

With your post, and particularly the willful blindnees and saying you see NOTHING wrong or questionable with the Clintons behavior (WTF??? I'm speechless!!) I have to give you the much sought after award ... poster boy for self-denial.

You're also making my point ...as long as the Clinton's deliver the goods, you're ok with them. Un-F***ing-believable but no doubt true.

There is not one shred of evidence out there, and don't bother posting all the breitbart links or the daily caller links.

What is unbelievable is the GOP thinking they can continue to manufacture these stories, then set their hair on fire while screaming how can you support these people with all these stories that WE MADE UP.

Women are not as stupid as you would have us believe. How does the song go "Don't Be Fooled Again" ?

Originally Posted by Guest

There is not one shred of evidence out there, and don't bother posting all the breitbart links or the daily caller links.

What is unbelievable is the GOP thinking they can continue to manufacture these stories, then set their hair on fire while screaming how can you support these people with all these stories that WE MADE UP.

Women are not as stupid as you would have us believe. How does the song go "Don't Be Fooled Again" ?

It's not a question of stupidity but rather willful blindness.

Now, let's get real ... just for a minute if that's all you can muster. --> If ANY other public leader did the kind of stuff the Clintons do with the email server, and the "donations" to the Foundation from foreign governments, and seeing their net worth grow to $150M by running a CHARITY (to cite just a few examples), you would be apoplectic with skepticism, and probably have to double your blood pressure meds. You would be demanding investigations to get to the bottom of things ... which come to think of it, is exactly what we need.

I mean ... if you cannot see it, then any reasonable person has to conclude it is simply because you don't want to see it. Wow ... someone needs to do some academic research into this psychological phenomenon. It's quite interesting the more evidence that accrues...ie your post and that of others on TOTV alone.

Remember we have lawyers defending, working for and assessing lawyers.
They use, abuse and hide behind the letter of the law. They know exactly how far to go out on the definition of "legal" thin ice and still legitimatel legally state no harm done. The legal wagons are circled around the Clintons, make no mistake about it.

And the even when they get caught depending who you are, and again a lawyer or not, nothing happens like the crooked deals of Charlie Rangel or the known tax evasion of Sharpton.

The other gage I like is the one that simply states nothing is illegal until you get caught.....and then it may not matter either. Welcome to the 21st century of selective enforcement.

Loretta Lynch Sworn In As First African-American Woman Attorney General


Finally, Loretta Lynch was sworn in as the 83rd Attorney General of the US shortly after 11:00 am today by Vice-President Joe Biden. Lynch, who was nominated for the AG job five months ago by President Barack Obama, took longer to be confirmed than the last seven AG's combined.

After the swearing in, Lynch gave a powerful speech and outlined her priorities. If anyone can fill AG Eric Holder's big shoes, it will be Lynch.

[QUOTE=Guest;1050566]
And the even when they get caught depending who you are, and again a lawyer or not, nothing happens like the crooked deals of Charlie Rangel or the known tax evasion of Sharpton.

QUOTE]

Oh Thank you, I have been awaiting the name of the evil one to be invoked. You automatically win the argument when you hit the bulls eye with a well thrown Sharpton dart.

[quote=Guest;1051910]

Originally Posted by Guest

And the even when they get caught depending who you are, and again a lawyer or not, nothing happens like the crooked deals of Charlie Rangel or the known tax evasion of Sharpton.

QUOTE]

Oh Thank you, I have been awaiting the name of the evil one to be invoked. You automatically win the argument when you hit the bulls eye with a well thrown Sharpton dart.

Yes, why would any liberal pick on Sharpton? He's an obvious buffoon, poorly educated and a world class tax cheat ... simpatico with the liberals in so many ways?