More shady Clinton foundation stuff uncovered

[bobloblaw]

I dont understand why partisan Dems dont see the disaster that Hillary will be for their party. She might win, might have moderate coattails, but the long term damage she does to the party will be enormous. Can the Dem party in 2018 stand another 2014 or 2010 rout?

Thanks to 2010 and 2014, there is essentially no Dem bench in many states, OH and FL among them. How far down does the Dem party want to fall so that Hillary can be president?

[bobloblaw]

so not interested in another 1.5 to 9.5 years of this

Hillary Clinton will destroy the Dem party.

In fact it can be argued the Dem party never quite recovered from the 1994 mid term elections thanks to the Clintons. Since that time the GOP has held the House for 18/22 years. Oh yeah yeah Gerrymandering. Well the GOP couldnt Gerrymander if they didnt control the majority of state legislatures and governors mansions, another gift from 1994 and the Clintons

[bobloblaw]

Gingrich said the Clinton Foundation broke the law.

I'm having to remind myself that it's not the 1990s again.

Well dont.  Because today unlike the 1990s the NYT and the WaPo are saying Hillary is corrupt. It isnt the vast right wing conspiracy going after Hillary but the Paper of Record.

[bobloblaw]

Gingrich said the Clinton Foundation broke the law.

I'm having to remind myself that it's not the 1990s again.

Well dont.  Because today unlike the 1990s the NYT and the WaPo are saying Hillary is corrupt. It isnt the vast right wing conspiracy going after Hillary but the Paper of Record.

You obviously didn't read any of the articles in the "Paper of Record."

I did actually and the editorial and the WaPo.
Your candidate is a train wreck and should she win, she will destroy the Dem party by 2018.

[bobloblaw]

Gingrich said the Clinton Foundation broke the law.

I'm having to remind myself that it's not the 1990s again.

Well dont.  Because today unlike the 1990s the NYT and the WaPo are saying Hillary is corrupt. It isnt the vast right wing conspiracy going after Hillary but the Paper of Record.

I consider real corruption to be lying a nation into a war of choice that destabilized a region and then handling the aftermath of the war with incredible incompetence.

Maybe that's just me.

Only that? Is that it? Nothing lesser? You dont consider selling influence in the State Dept to be corruption? So you have only one definition of corruption then.

[bobloblaw]

Where in the article did it establish that Clinton had sold influence in the State Department?

I did actually and the editorial and the WaPo.
Your candidate is a train wreck and should she win, she will destroy the Dem party by 2018.

Also, stop concern trolling. The Democratic Party will be just fine.

Im just pointing it out. Hillary is actually my 2nd or 3rd choice for President and well ahead of Bush, who is my last. I will look forward to election night 2018 when the GOP walks away with 35-40 governors, 70% of state legislatures and gerrymanders the 2020 census so the Dems are locked out of the House until 2032 at the earliest.

The interesting thing is the GOP recovered from its 2006 debacle but the Dems really never recovered from 1994.

[bobloblaw]

Gingrich said the Clinton Foundation broke the law.

I'm having to remind myself that it's not the 1990s again.

Well dont.  Because today unlike the 1990s the NYT and the WaPo are saying Hillary is corrupt. It isnt the vast right wing conspiracy going after Hillary but the Paper of Record.

I consider real corruption to be lying a nation into a war of choice that destabilized a region and then handling the aftermath of the war with incredible incompetence.

Maybe that's just me.

Only that? Is that it? Nothing lesser? You dont consider selling influence in the State Dept to be corruption? So you have only one definition of corruption then.

If it actually occurred, then yes, that would be corruption.  But, all there is is circumstantial evidence that has been nearly all debunked.  Of course, it is no better or worse corruption than the modern campaign finance system.

You don't consider lying a nation into war to be worse than 'selling influence'?

None of it has been debunked, nice try though.

[bobloblaw]

You may think we didn't notice, but we all realize you didn't respond to my question asking where in the article you supposedly read that it established Clinton had peddled influence for donations in her family's charity.

Gee where is the evidence Bush knowingly lied about WMDs in Irag.

The answer is that is where the investigative reporting will lead. The Clinton Foundation will be a huge albotross for Hillary.

[bobloblaw]

Gingrich said the Clinton Foundation broke the law.

I'm having to remind myself that it's not the 1990s again.

Well dont.  Because today unlike the 1990s the NYT and the WaPo are saying Hillary is corrupt. It isnt the vast right wing conspiracy going after Hillary but the Paper of Record.

I consider real corruption to be lying a nation into a war of choice that destabilized a region and then handling the aftermath of the war with incredible incompetence.

Maybe that's just me.

Only that? Is that it? Nothing lesser? You dont consider selling influence in the State Dept to be corruption? So you have only one definition of corruption then.

If it actually occurred, then yes, that would be corruption.  But, all there is is circumstantial evidence that has been nearly all debunked.  Of course, it is no better or worse corruption than the modern campaign finance system.

You don't consider lying a nation into war to be worse than 'selling influence'?

None of it has been debunked, nice try though.

Actually it has been.

No it hasnt. If so, the story would go away. This story wont be going away anytime soon.

[bobloblaw]

You may think we didn't notice, but we all realize you didn't respond to my question asking where in the article you supposedly read that it established Clinton had peddled influence for donations in her family's charity.

Gee where is the evidence Bush knowingly lied about WMDs in Irag.

The answer is that is where the investigative reporting will lead. The Clinton Foundation will be a huge albotross for Hillary.

Still deflecting.

Deflecting?? That is what the Clinton's do.

[bobloblaw]

You're really unbelievable.

The two of you represent the moral and intellectual bankruptcy that plagues liberalism. Things like integrity mean nothing to you. For you it is all about the short term win.

Liberals today are driven by hate. Hatred of conservatism. What conservatives stand for, liberals reflexively oppose. A great example is the Ex-Im bank. Something liberals opposed for 30 years until conservatives also started opposing Ex-Im. Then liberals decided Ex-Im was important for American jobs. Their real motivation was to oppose conservatives.

[bobloblaw]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

1.Anybody who still supports the Republican Party after the Bush/Cheney years and the war based on lies, the tax cuts for the 'haves and have mores', the global warming denialism,  the handling of the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina, the failure of SEC Chair Christopher Cox to stop the financial corruption that led to the great recession and on and on, is in NO position to lecture anybody about 'moral and intellectual bankruptcy.'

The only ones morally and intellectually bankrupt are the Bush/Cheney Administration and all of their enablers, such as yourself.

So, please do us all a favor and go crawl back under your rock.

2.The only thing I hate is willful stupidity.

I look forward to you supporting Bush when the author of "Clinton Cash" goes after him.

I know youre a partisan hack when you bring up Katrina. What exactly did Bush do wrong in Katrina? When the people of LA had a chance to vote, they threw out the Gov and Mayor of NOLA. Tell me EXACTLY what Bush did wrong.

You should hate Obama, he signed 99.9% of Bush's 2001 and 2003 tax cuts into law. Why didnt the Dems raise taxes when they had a chance in 2009-10?

Hillary vote for the war, enough said.

The climate is changing and will always change. For some reason you think the climate should be static. What I deny is that passing legislation will some how stop the climate from changing. And that taxpayers and the USA in particular must be poorer to keep the climate exactly as is.


The stupidly is all spewing from you.