Does anybody on this board want Hillary to be President?

[CID1990]

Bernie closes the gap in Iowa to just 3. He's up anywhere from 4-13 points in New Hampshire.

A Bernie-Trump election would be great viewing!

In Iowa, Mrs. Clinton has 48 percent of support and Mr. Sanders has 45 percent as the competition between the two has become more contentious. Martin O’Malley, the third Democratic presidential candidate, has 5 percent in Iowa, meaning he will most likely qualify for the next presidential debate.

But in New Hampshire, the survey also found Mr. Sanders at 50 percent, to 46 percent for Mrs. Clinton.

That margin is smaller than a recent Fox News survey, in which Mr. Sanders led Mrs. Clinton by 13 points. An NBC survey last month showed Mr. Sanders ahead by nine points in New Hampshire.

http://www.nytimes.com/politics/first-d ... new-polls/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Not gonna happen. She will walk to the nomination, even if she is indicted (which also won't happen).

[Ibanez]

What would you rather have in the White House?
1. This:

2. or this:

Whom*

[CitadelGrad]

What would you rather have in the White House?
1. This:

2. or this:

Whom*

Hillary is a "what", not a "whom".

[Skjellyfetti]

Whom*

*Who

subject = who

[Ibanez]

Whom*

*Who

subject = who

What?

[CID1990]

I gotta be honest

when Hillary was younger.. like in her Watergate days...

id have made her look like a glazed donut

[kalm]

Bernie closes the gap in Iowa to just 3. He's up anywhere from 4-13 points in New Hampshire.

A Bernie-Trump election would be great viewing!




http://www.nytimes.com/politics/first-d ... new-polls/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Not gonna happen. She will walk to the nomination, even if she is indicted (which also won't happen).

My cynical side (most of me) thinks you're right. But thinking back to the supposed coronation in 2008 and how Trump had no chance just 6 months ago gives me a tiny sliver of hope.

[Ibanez]

Inside the FBI, pressure is growing to pursue the case.

One intelligence source told Fox News that FBI agents would be “screaming” if a prosecution is not pursued because “many previous public corruption cases have been made and successfully prosecuted with much less evidence than what is emerging in this investigation.”

The FBI is particularly on edge in the wake of how the case of former CIA Director David Petraeus was handled.

One of the three sources said some FBI agents felt Petraeus was given a slap on the wrist for sharing highly classified information with his mistress and biographer Paula Broadwell, as well as lying to FBI agents about his actions. Petraeus pleaded guilty to a misdemeanor in March 2015 after a two-plus-year federal investigation in which Attorney General Eric Holder initially declined to prosecute.

In the Petraeus case, the exposure of classified information was assessed to be limited.

By contrast, in the Clinton case, the number of classified emails has risen to at least 1,340. A 2015 appeal by the State Department to challenge the “Top Secret” classification of at least two emails failed and, as Fox News first reported, is now considered a settled matter

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2016/01 ... track.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[CID1990]

Inside the FBI, pressure is growing to pursue the case.

One intelligence source told Fox News that FBI agents would be “screaming” if a prosecution is not pursued because “many previous public corruption cases have been made and successfully prosecuted with much less evidence than what is emerging in this investigation.”

The FBI is particularly on edge in the wake of how the case of former CIA Director David Petraeus was handled.

One of the three sources said some FBI agents felt Petraeus was given a slap on the wrist for sharing highly classified information with his mistress and biographer Paula Broadwell, as well as lying to FBI agents about his actions. Petraeus pleaded guilty to a misdemeanor in March 2015 after a two-plus-year federal investigation in which Attorney General Eric Holder initially declined to prosecute.

In the Petraeus case, the exposure of classified information was assessed to be limited.

By contrast, in the Clinton case, the number of classified emails has risen to at least 1,340. A 2015 appeal by the State Department to challenge the “Top Secret” classification of at least two emails failed and, as Fox News first reported, is now considered a settled matter

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2016/01 ... track.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

It doesn't matter.

After all the things the DoJ has failed to do over the last 7 years... and Obama doesn't have to win reelection this time around.... I just don't see an indictment

and even if there WAS an indictment- it will be a Federal prosecutor handling the case- which will be conveniently pled down

the FBI can rebel all they want - at the end of the day they are Federal bureaucrats - just like me- who have to feed their families. Being given an unlawful order is one thing- you have protections when you pick up the pitchfork and the torch. But the AG exercising prosecutorial discretion... which we may not like in this instance..but believe me it is as important as judicial independence if not more so.. there is no rebelling against that discretion without career consequences

I think this whole "the FBI would rebel" thing is silly - they would be mad... a year or two down the road there will be a retiree or two on FOX talking about how livid they were and how guilty President Clinton was

but none of it will matter

we are a banana republic and have been for some time- the rules do not apply to everyone, and as in every other banana republic.... corruption is perfectly OK as long as it us your people who are corrupt and not the other guy's

[Chizzang]

we are a banana republic and have been for some time- the rules do not apply to everyone, and as in every other banana republic....

Are you ^ inside my head...That is absolutely spot on
Sometimes on here we see Ivytalk or 89hen tell us about our superb legal system

but mostly its a money exchanging system disguised as a legal system
The more money and power the more exchanges you get to make with it
as banana republic as it gets right there

[CID1990]

we are a banana republic and have been for some time- the rules do not apply to everyone, and as in every other banana republic....

Are you ^ inside my head...That is absolutely spot on
Sometimes on here we see Ivytalk or 89hen tell us about our superb legal system

but mostly its a money exchanging system disguised as a legal system
The more money and power the more exchanges you get to make with it
as banana republic as it gets right there

out of all the BS over the last several years - I don't even see this latest thing as the worst

what chaps my ass to no end still to
this day is the fact that Lois Lerner is not breaking rocks at Leavenworth

there has not been a more egregious abuse of executive branch power in a long time - the fact that a Federal employee could act in such an egregious manner and walk away with a pension makes my blood boil

the fact that the left could defend her - even knowing that what they defend today could be turned against them tomorrow - shows me how lost we really are

I've said it before and I'll say it again - integrity is dead (and a political liability to boot, apparently)

rant over

[Chizzang]

what chaps my ass to no end still to
this day is the fact that Lois Lerner is not breaking rocks at Leavenworth

there has not been a more egregious abuse of executive branch power in a long time - the fact that a Federal employee could act in such an egregious manner and walk away with a pension makes my blood boil

the fact that the left could defend her - even knowing that what they defend today could be turned against them tomorrow - shows me how lost we really are

I've said it before and I'll say it again - integrity is dead (and a political liability to boot, apparently)

rant over

The problem was - dumb as a box of rocks - Darrell Issa...
He was far too ham fisted in his approach he was so excited to destroy her

That and at that level of politics nobody (and I do mean nobody) gets successfully convicted of anything

[CID1990]

what chaps my ass to no end still to
this day is the fact that Lois Lerner is not breaking rocks at Leavenworth

there has not been a more egregious abuse of executive branch power in a long time - the fact that a Federal employee could act in such an egregious manner and walk away with a pension makes my blood boil

the fact that the left could defend her - even knowing that what they defend today could be turned against them tomorrow - shows me how lost we really are

I've said it before and I'll say it again - integrity is dead (and a political liability to boot, apparently)

rant over

The problem was - dumb as a box of rocks - Darrell Issa...
He was far too ham fisted in his approach he was so excited to destroy her

That and at that level of politics nobody (and I do mean nobody) gets successfully convicted of anything

That's just another symptom of the problem but not the problem itself.

It shouldn't matter one bit how Issa conducted his oversight on the IRS. In a world where the DoJ does its job, they would have conducted their own investigation based on the evidence that came up in the hearings.

And any government bureaucrat who brazenly targets groups of people solely because of their political bent SHOULD be destroyed, with prejudice- and people of every political leaning should be fully on board with that. The fact it was possible at all should be chilling to everybody.

[Skjellyfetti]

And any government bureaucrat who brazenly targets groups of people solely because of their political bent SHOULD be destroyed, with prejudice- and people of every political leaning should be fully on board with that. The fact it was possible at all should be chilling to everybody.

Where did you fall on the Plame scandal again?

[CID1990]

And any government bureaucrat who brazenly targets groups of people solely because of their political bent SHOULD be destroyed, with prejudice- and people of every political leaning should be fully on board with that. The fact it was possible at all should be chilling to everybody.

Where did you fall on the Plame scandal again?

I'm not going to re-argue the facts of the Plame case - other than to say she was declared, but she still should not have been burned.

That said, you obviously don't grasp the difference here (not surprising)

Like I said, to me even Hillary's shenanigans pale in comparison to Lerner's. So do the events surrounding Plame.

[andy7171]

I gotta be honest

when Hillary was younger.. like in her Watergate days...

id have made her look like a glazed donut

The reject pile is very small for all of us.

[Grizalltheway]

Yep.

[andy7171]

Yep.

Bumpit?

[CID1990]

Yep.

in this pic she doesn't have on the librarian glasses that make Mr Happy rise

[Bronco]

-
Move On.org endorsed the old Commie...Bernie

Had to say Bernie because Old Hillary could also fit

Bad news because I think Move On was started to defend Bill when he was in trouble for putting cigars in young interns. Let's move on was the theme

[houndawg]

Bernie closes the gap in Iowa to just 3. He's up anywhere from 4-13 points in New Hampshire.

A Bernie-Trump election would be great viewing!

In Iowa, Mrs. Clinton has 48 percent of support and Mr. Sanders has 45 percent as the competition between the two has become more contentious. Martin O’Malley, the third Democratic presidential candidate, has 5 percent in Iowa, meaning he will most likely qualify for the next presidential debate.

But in New Hampshire, the survey also found Mr. Sanders at 50 percent, to 46 percent for Mrs. Clinton.

That margin is smaller than a recent Fox News survey, in which Mr. Sanders led Mrs. Clinton by 13 points. An NBC survey last month showed Mr. Sanders ahead by nine points in New Hampshire.

http://www.nytimes.com/politics/first-d ... new-polls/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Will be great viewing.

[houndawg]

Not gonna happen. She will walk to the nomination, even if she is indicted (which also won't happen).

My cynical side (most of me) thinks you're right. But thinking back to the supposed coronation in 2008 and how Trump had no chance just 6 months ago gives me a tiny sliver of hope.

Next year at this time I'll be reminding the conks who it was that told them back in '15 that Hillary had a bigger problem with Bernie than was commonly thought.

[kalm]

My cynical side (most of me) thinks you're right. But thinking back to the supposed coronation in 2008 and how Trump had no chance just 6 months ago gives me a tiny sliver of hope.

Next year at this time I'll be reminding the conks who it was that told them back in '15 that Hillary had a bigger problem with Bernie than was commonly thought.

Who do conks fear most in the Whitehouse? Bernie or Hillary?

[GannonFan]

My cynical side (most of me) thinks you're right. But thinking back to the supposed coronation in 2008 and how Trump had no chance just 6 months ago gives me a tiny sliver of hope.

Next year at this time I'll be reminding the conks who it was that told them back in '15 that Hillary had a bigger problem with Bernie than was commonly thought.

Bernie was always going to have a good start to the campaign. Iowa is never definitive one way or the other and he's bound to do well in New Hampshire. That means he's hanging around through February in good shape. The tire hits the road on March 1st - we'll know then if he's a real threat to Hillary or not. Eight primaries (or caucuses) that day, with two of them in New England but with a lot in the South.

He's riding a lot of that Trump wave right now - Dems figure if the GOP's going to nominate a crazy guy, then they should feel okay electing their own crazy guy. Ah, politics in 2016.

[GannonFan]

Next year at this time I'll be reminding the conks who it was that told them back in '15 that Hillary had a bigger problem with Bernie than was commonly thought.

Who do conks fear most in the Whitehouse? Bernie or Hillary?

I think they would fear Hillary. First of all, she'd be much more likely to be able to win again in 4 years - no way the first woman President is held to one term. Bernie, if he won, would be 75 years old when he takes the oath - no way he gets a second term and besides, he'd probably not even run for it anyway. And second, she has a much better grasp of governing politics - she'd probably get some things through, even with the GOP in control of both houses of Congress.

Bernie, like Trump, would just be the angry old man Presidency, doing a lot of complaining and finger pointing but probably not really accomplishing anything. And not accomplishing anything is starting to be a trend in the Executive mansion anyway.