Doesn’t Bill have his own Secret Service detail?
“So, Loretta, you think that our Dark Lord would look with more favor on sacrificing the most recent grandchild?”
Well, that tears it - I will definitely not be voting for Bill Clinton this November.
I don’t know about that. I think he is less obsessive about her getting elected than he was about himself getting elected, but her getting elected is less directly connected to his self-image.
But yes, it was dumb.
Regards,
Shodan
Lynch has said that she’s stepping back from the investigation, but that she wouldn’t recur herself completely so that she could still be briefed on things.
She has pointed out, however, that she will follow the recommendations of the others, and will not be downgrading any possible charges.
Saw this from that conservative rag NPR, “Bipartisan Disapproval Follows Bill Clinton’s Meeting With Loretta Lynch.”
You forget the Dopes second motto, “It’s ok if a Democrat does it.”
NPR? Please their just as evil and racist as FauxNauxs.
Looking at the NPR report the ones that have experience in the issue tell us that there were no ethical problems there, specially for Lynch, just that Bill was foolish. In essence, unless there is a recording to the contrary, what Lynch told us is what it was. Nothing related to the investigation.
What is foolish also is that, Trump called it the biggest news of the year.
Two foolish things does not make it a smart thing for the Republicans. And I see once again the typical Clinton scandal where the Clintons in the end look better thanks to the incredible cathedral of assumptions the right builds about a dumb move that does not mean much.
Do you think Bill wants Hillary to retire so she they can hang out more together? Once she’s elected, it’ll be: WOO-HOOOOO!! PAR-TAY TIME!!!
So Hillary’s current approval ratings is the cumulative effect of all these scandals making her look better? Interesting take.
Missing the point, the point refers to the failure in the end of the “scandals” that the Republicans think are important. In the long run most people do realize that the failure of those scandals to pan out is what convinces many to not vote Republican **because many conclude that almost all the reasons for the “scandals” are to just to score political points. **
Most people do realize that it makes no sense to give power to people that will use it to either punish political enemies or to distract from important issues.
I also think that the Republicans in leadership positions do know that a lot of the scandals pushed are bullshit, but while most Americans will realize that the scandals are mostly political in nature there is a good number of Republicans that will never get that, so the show must go on.
I’ve come to the conclusion (opinion) that the Clintons are just about the most politically savvy people in American history.
They obviously know where the rule limits are, and stick their toes right on the line, but never actually crossing it. In other words, they know how far they can bend the rules, and not actually break them.
Had they broken any serious rules (other than lying about Lewinski, which, let’s face it, was relatively benign), they’d be in prison for the next 3 generations.
From what I understand, Hillary didn’t break any existing laws regarding her emails. It was probably a dumb thing to do, and shows poor judgement, but illegal at the time?
Benghazi has now played out, and while things happened that shouldn’t have, even the Republicans can’t show she’s personally to blame.
Trump brought up Whitewater and Vince Foster…?
The Clintons are politicians, and are very, very good at playing the political game. I’m not saying they’re necessarily worthy of admiration because of that, but if the opposition keeps looking under rocks, and finds (almost) nothing, then eventually, you have to say there’s (almost) nothing there. Certainly not on the level of treason or war crimes, more like the level of driving while on a cell phone (where it’s not illegal). Dumb and ill-advised, but hardly worthy of the death penalty.
I’m sorry but you are the one who’s missed the point. They may be mostly bullshit scandals but they most certainly don’t make the Clintons “end up looking better” unless you think her approval ratings would be even worse without the scandals.
Two things that you miss, first I do think that if there had been no exaggerations than then when the hammer did fall that the Clintons would had look really bad (think about the old saying that refers to not get involved when your enemies stumble and fall on their own). Instead what happens is that the Republicans look like jerks for using a bazooka to kill a fly…
… And they even miss the fly.
Second, you still miss the other point, indeed I expect that her approvals would be better, and they will be if the most likely thing happens and there is not even a recommendation to indict Clinton. And the deserved criticism that Clinton will get for making a dumb move with her server looks very small compared to the promised by many Republicans that Clinton was guaranteed to go to prison.
The disconnect may sound still good for the Republicans but most people will wonder why we should give the power to be judge and executioner to guys that get it so wrong so often.
That’s my point: they are “bullshit scandals”. Should the Clintons be praised for these “scandals”? Hell no, but my point is after all the investigations, and the money and time wasted, there’s really nothing there.
In the meantime, we’ve got a candidate who all but says that waterboarding is too good for our enemies, and is being criticized because waterboarding is “torture” and a “warcrime”.
cite: Trump advocates waterboarding and 'much worse' to battle terrorists
So for comparison’s sake, we’ve got a career politician(s) who get involved in “bullshit scandals,” as opposed to a viable presidential candidate who is being suied for fraud (Trump University) and is an outspoken advocate of illegal activity (torture and war crimes).
And people really side with Trump?
Well the point I seem to be missing is “makes the Republicans look like jerks”=“makes the Clintons look better” which is a dichotomy that doesn’t seem to be borne out by polling.
You misspelled “vile”.
I based that on the fact that Bill Clinton ended his presidency with high approval poll ratings. I remember that many did point out at the overreach and hypocrisy of the Republicans then at the time of his impeachment as affecting also how they saw the Republican lawmakers that did overreach improperly.
http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/stories/1998/12/20/impeachment.poll/
Regarding the email scandal, when the actions of Republicans are taken into account, the polls favor Hillary Clinton.
Regarding the scandal at hand, It sounds more like an attempt at distracting many about the scandals going on in the Trump camp.
I don’t agree with you often, but as a lifelong Democrat who will be voting for Hillary Clinton, I agree with you here.
The meeting should not have happened. The appearance of impropriety is there even if no impropriety took place. Lynch may need to clearly and unambiguously recuse herself, even if that means she can no longer be briefed on the case.
He may consciously want her to be President but unconsciously be determined to prevent her from being President. (He would scarcely be the first husband to have mixed feelings about a potential job-upgrade for his wife.)
In any case, I do have great sympathy for Lynch who was in an impossible position. She couldn’t say ‘no’ to Bill–a man who is arguably responsible for much of her career success (he’d appointed her in 1999 as US Attorney for the Eastern District of NY). She couldn’t say ‘I’d love to see you, Bill, but it would look wrong, so we’d better not’ because that would be the same thing as telling him he was an idiot for asking (which he was).
Tough spot for her and it’s already caused her no end of trouble. And meanwhile I would guess that Bill still doesn’t see any problem with his choice.
But Bill is not operated by Hillary; he is operated by his own little brain. So this does nothing to affect my intention to vote for Hillary.
ETA: Trump’s ‘theory’ that Hillary WANTED the meeting is absurd on its face, it goes without saying; why would a face-to-face meeting with Bill be crucial to corrupting Lynch into acting in some way that would benefit Hillary? (Particularly when the final FBI report is unlikely to contain anything substantial.) Was it supposed to be the case that Bill needed to romance Lynch? Bring her a sack of cash? What?
This is not a scandal. This is not only not a big deal, this is not a deal, period. Two friends got together and talked. Whooppee.