Hillary Clinton win = what for the economy?

[PaulT]

This is hilarious! What started as a contribution to a political campaign has now become payoff money. What started with Bill greeting Lynch at an airport has now become a meeting with Bill and Hillary, in Las Vegas, in an airplane. There is so much ingenuity here that if there was a Nobel Prize for ingenuity the screwball wing of the Republican party would surely win the Prize.

________________
Actually Bill Clinton did greet Lynch when they realized they were on the same tarmac in Phoenix. ""I did see President Clinton at the Phoenix airport as he was leaving and spoke to myself and my husband on the plane," Lynch said according to CNN affiliate KNXV/ABC15. "Our conversation was a great deal about grandchildren, it was primarily social about our travels and he mentioned golf he played in Phoenix."

A $450K contribution is not chump change - at least to me, although I acknowledge it may be to him. But an FBI staffer married to a Democrat legislator, is conflicted in any investigation of a politician, of either stripe. Surely the FBI is large enough that someone else with equivalent seniority status but no inherent conflict could have been appointed. Remember, it is not the actualization of conflict-of-interest, but rather the appearance of C-O-I that is an issue.

The same is true of the Attorney General's meeting with WJC behind closed doors when HRC is, or is about to be, under investigation by the DOJ. She should have appropriately greeted him cordially, and then begged off any further interaction under the pretense of a busy schedule. Don't forget the AG is already conflicted in this whole scenario, as it is highly probable that a Trump Administration would appoint a new AG. I don't know how this can be addressed short of the public's reliance on her integrity to do her job to the best of her ability. But to have a closed door meeting with the husband of a "target" not only does not meet the integrity test, but is clearly unconscionable.

And I think the Nobel Committee requires a higher hurdle of achievement than this IMO.

 

[Max E.]

 

[piezoe]

But an FBI staffer married to a Democrat legislator, is conflicted in any investigation of a politician, of either stripe. Surely the FBI is large enough that someone else with equivalent seniority status but no inherent conflict could have been appointed. Remember, it is not the actualization of conflict-of-interest, but rather the appearance of C-O-I that is an issue.

I agree completely; Who wouldn't?!! Let us both realize, as you obviously do, that it is probable that no one knows, other than FBI personnel, if the claim that a particular manager at the FBI headed the group that carried out the investigation is true. Considering the obvious inaccuracies in this "story" why would anyone put faith in anything claimed here without confirming it from a reliable source.

You are undoubtedly correct! The FBI will have rules in place to guard against conflicts of interest. To my knowledge, all Federal Agencies do, although enforcement may be uneven between agencies. I know for example about lapses within the Department of Agriculture, but, for example, I also know from direct personal experience that the NIH takes every imaginable precaution to avoid conflicts of interest, even the appearance of such where no conflict actually exists! NIH Program Directors are positively compulsive about this, and they take the prevention of conflicts of interest extremely seriously. It makes sense that both the FBI and the Justice Departments would be equally compulsive in avoiding even the appearance of a conflict.

This conspiracy malarky is based on mingling truth with fiction. It is unbelievable the crap that gets posted these days!

 

[profitlocker]

Yep. Piezoe and all the other fucktard cheerleaders here in a nutshell, more worried about gay rights and racism than the numbers right in front of them.

 

[piezoe]

The same is true of the Attorney General's meeting with WJC behind closed doors

Again we don't know if it was "behind closed doors." It was at the Phoeniz Airport, not Las Vegas, on a plane apparently, we don't know if anyone besides Lynch's husband was present, but probably there were people all around. The AG says they greeted one another and talked about kids and gulf. We are free to believe that or invent some other scenario such as a meeting between Lynch, Bill and Hillary, who wasn't there, took place "behind closed doors." This made up stuff gets mingled with the real stuff by those with overactive imaginations, and who is to say what's real and what's fiction except those who were actually there. A person is free to believe or not.

 

[AAAintheBeltway]

There is nothing there! Get over it! Just the usual and very predictable communications.

You must get your news from the WashPost or NYT.

Among the revelations were Clinton staffers coordinating illegally with ostensibly independent PACs and foundations. You and your "good government" hypocrits are so concerned about money in politics, etc, yet you manage to avert your eyes from obvious criminality.

Among the items they discussed was paying for thugs to disrupt Trump rallies and feed the media obsession with "violence" at such rallies. Yet Trump is savaged for "threatening our democracy" because he was noncommittal about challenging an obviously rigged election.

Numerous emails discussed pay for play access to the Secretary of State or to Bill Clinton. Again, you good government reformers are exposed as blatant hypocrites. You act like the Clintons are Royalty to whom normal rules do not apply. Come on, only the Kennedys get that treatment.

 

[AAAintheBeltway]

The AG says they greeted one another and talked about kids and gulf.

I guess this kind of willful self-delusion is the price liberals have to pay to look at themselves in the mirror every morning. It's sad. I know pie and nitro are well meaning people and they honestly mean well.

I live in DC and I am around these political and media people all the time. I can tell you even they don't believe half what you guys do. To them, it's all about getting power and using it to line their pockets. They stand on no different moral plane than tobacco executives, selling a product they know is harmful.

 

[achilles28]

More of the same.

Market on to new highs if Hillary wins.

Just wait until the US Treasury debt implosion.

That's it really..

 

[piezoe]

coordinating illegally

Can you sight the relevant law please?

Among the items they discussed was paying for thugs to disrupt Trump rallies and feed the media obsession with "violence" at such rallies.

Discussing or arranging to pay thugs. Two different things. We are in a sense discussing such here in this thread. Seems perfectly OK to me. Can you find the email you refer to so we can judge for ourselves. That would be much appreciated. Try not to quote Breitbart however. When someone tries to impugn someone else by innuendo I can't pay much attention. I would have to see the actual email you are referring to, because I know Clinton is a highly experienced politician. Certainly she herself would never suggest the things you claim by innuendo are in an email. It is possible that someone peripheral to her campaign might do such a ridiculous thing without authorization. I doubt that too though. Chances are the email you are referring to is exactly as you described it, a discussion of disruptions of Trump rallies by people who are perhaps clinton or bernie supporters but not in any way connected to either campaign. But to suggest, again by innuendo, that either the Clinton or Bernie campaigns would approve such idiotic behavior is frankly absurd. The last thing either of them would do is approve payments to physical disrupters of Trump's campaign. They will spend millions on legal political ads to disrupt his campaign, but pay for physical violence? Don't be stupid please. It would seem you are too easily manipulated. Do you know the meaning of the word "ostensibly?"

 

[Tom B]

Can you sight the relevant law please?

Discussing or arranging to pay thugs. Two different things. We are in a sense discussing such here in this thread. Seems perfectly OK to me. Can you find the email you refer to so we can judge for ourselves. That would be much appreciated. Try not to quote Breitbart however. When someone tries to impugn someone else by innuendo I can't pay much attention. I would have to see the actual email you are referring to, because I know Clinton is a highly experienced politician. Certainly she herself would never suggest the things you claim by innuendo are in an email. It is possible that someone peripheral to her campaign might do such a ridiculous thing without authorization. I doubt that too though. Chances are the email you are referring to is exactly as you described it, a discussion of disruptions of Trump rallies by people who are perhaps clinton or bernie supporters but not in any way connected to either campaign. But to suggest, again by innuendo, that either the Clinton or Bernie campaigns would approve such idiotic behavior is frankly absurd. The last thing either of them would do is approve payments to physical disrupters of Trump's campaign. They will spend millions on legal political ads to disrupt his campaign, but pay for physical violence? Don't be stupid please. It would seem you are too easily manipulated. Do you know the meaning of the word "ostensibly?"