“Lock him up! Lock him up!” 
Publicly invite her for tea in the Rose Garden, “just us girls”. Maybe a naughty glass of Chardonnay.
Only because you’re making up the rules. Conviction was relevant to the email scandal because that’s literally all they had. Someone circumventing some security measures for convenience was never all that big a deal. It’s just not something anyone gave a shit about. Only a conviction would make it matter.
Conviction is really not all that relevant here. Closing down a bridge as a way to attack a rival is a problem even if no one is convicted. It’s an actual ethics violation. The only question is about how much Christie himself was involved. We already have the smoking gun for everything else.
Plus, the Clinton investigation is over. The Christie one isn’t. Which also covers pretty much any other issue you could have been referencing.
I honestly don’t know what “crooked Hillary,” as Republicans keep using, even actually references. They’ve focused entirely on things that are so small, with only at most technical legal violations.
Considering Clinton got bitch slapped by the F.B.I regarding Hillary’s ‘facts’ about her email setup, that is a dangerous line to take.
Slee
Another poster noted that this election is like a nightmare. It is. Clinton and Trump are the best we can come up with? Egads, we are screwed.
Even if what she did wasn’t criminal, it was damned careless. She deserved the reaming she got from Comey.
And Christie has deserved all the criticism he’s gotten over Bridgegate. I’m just wondering why the Obama defense doesn’t apply her, much less the Clinton defense. The Obama defense being “I didn’t know, I read about it in the paper just like you.” which seems to be just dandy to most Obama supporters even though he’s relied on it several times to save his skin. Christie’s only used it once.
It’s the usual Rove approach - loudly accuse your opponent of your own weaknesses, so they won’t damage you as much.
Well, there ya go.
And Clinton also richly deserves her honesty ratings.
Meanwhile, let’s not forget that Donald himself has a few court appointmentscoming up.
You mean these?
Hillary’s “Trumpyourself” website just told me i was gay…
:smack: Wow
Are there any adults running?
All I do is get to select between options, there’s no automated process to this one at all, until you create the one you select.
Why is Hillary actively looking for the most boring, blandest, whitest, most “who the hell is that?” candidate for Vice President?
Yeah, why would a Clinton expect to win with a boring and bland white running mate?
Was that sarcasm, or were you agreeing with me? Was I whooshed?
I’m just saying, Gore was – not known for having an electrifying persona.
They didn’t need any help with Bill running the top of the ticket.
Well, it’s possible that Hillary just has to not lose.
Because selecting VPs for their fame and excitement level never results in an actual win. The modern VP is a partner to the President and should be about as exciting as your average cabinet appointment.
Do you see some young unready person as a partner to an intellectual giant like Hillary Clinton? And I don’t say that ironically, despite my general dislike of her. She’s a literal genius and understands policy better than all but a very few others. What could someone like Castro or Perez or even Warren possibly do to help her govern? Whereas a Tom Vilsack is someone she’s been comfortable with for years and can be a true partner for her. Tim Kaine doesn’t have the same relationship with her, but does bring a great resume as well as extensive policy knowledge himself. Whereas the primary virtue of the “exciting” picks is the color of their skin or their gender. What will also be exciting about those picks is the harebrained advice they give Clinton that causes her to roll her eyes and try really hard not to encourage them to be silent while the adults are talking.