Donald Trump Names RNC Chair Reince Priebus Chief of Staff

You have clearly bought into the anti-Clinton propaganda. In actuality, she's just a typical politician, not the scary boogie woman that induces enuresis in those who swallow the right-wing's demonization.

What ever happened to her satanic majesty's "disastrous" electoral college and "rigged" election?

 

Well he did say when proposing to "drain the swamp", there'd be no insiders or lobbyists. His credibility is rapidly dropping and he hasn't even been sworn into office yet.

 

She was destroyed in spite of it, that's what happened.

 

When you have a "Justus" Department instead of a Justice Department, you can not expect any indictments. Remember back when Trump was first elected, and three armed New Black Panther members were standing in front of a Philadelphia voting site. A Federal Judge found them guilty of voter intimidation. He sentenced them to jail time. As soon as Eric Holder was approved, he set their conviction aside, something that he can not do, and entered into a plea agreement with them to pay a small fine and barred them from any polling sight until the next Presidential Election. When you have a corrupt AG, you can not claim a lack of a indictment as proof of no wrong doing. That claim is as morally corrupt as the Department of Homeland Security claiming that a lack of arrests of illegals is proof that there was not illegal immigration issue. That was after they told Border Patrol officers not to make arrests. Or claiming that most of the guns confiscated by the Mexican Government had origins in the Untied States. This after the Administration had started an AFT operation that allowed guns to be smuggled unimpeded into Mexico. So, your claim is not only morally corrupt, but completely ludicrous.

You are also forgetting that the FBI Director said that she did in fact break the law. But I am not calling for imprisoning Clinton without due process. I think that Trump should keep his promise to appoint a Special Prosecutor. All a fair and impartial staff to look at all the evidence, look into all the factors, and exercise the law. There should be no special privilege just because she is a Democrat Elite. That Special Prosecutor should look into her use of emails and her pay for play scheme.

You can not convince me that you would not be calling for the same thing is she had been a Republican.

 

The reason that the incumbent was twice elected with over 51% of the vote and is currently accorded 57% approval is largely due to the considerable economic progress that has been mad since the Bush absconded.

Can The Great Flatu perpetuate what he has achieved?

We'll see.

- - - Updated - - -

Hilarious.

 

Am I?

Could you provide a link to a reliable source where the FBI Director said, "She did, in fact, break the law."

Please excuse me for insisting on confirmation, but so many hyper-partisan lies are spewed, it's only prudent to request such attributions be substantiated.

 

Meh, obama's approval is of him personally, not his policies. Anytime obama says his policies are on the ballot he loses. Do you think he is personally insulted that more did not turn out to vote for Hillary?

 

Oh I agree, her getting destroyed despite her sycophants best attempts truly is....hilarious.

 

In legal language "evidence of potential violation" means that a law was broken, but has not been convicted in court. The rest of the quoted statement is completely unsupportable by case law. I have written about a case where I was involved. I was duty Clerk on duty at a Marine Corps Group Headquarters when NIS (the predecessors of NCIS) determined that there were some classified documents missing from the Classified Material Vault. One of those documents was located at the house of the Group Commanding Officer. He was using it to work at home on a OP plan for an upcoming deployment. Absolutely no criminal intent there, and it dealt with only one document. Yet the Full Bird Col was sentenced to a prison term in Leavenworth. So, Director Comey admitted that she broke the law, and gave her a free pass. You can read the full text of Comey's statement at this link:

https://www.fbi.gov/news/pressrel/p...-clinton2019s-use-of-a-personal-e-mail-system

 

You have been very pissy about the President for quite a while, so I am not surprised that you can't honestly acknowledge the progress he has achieved.

 

It's unfortunate that she causes some people to we wee that frillies. She's just a typical politician more Americans voted for.

 

Your claim that "Comey admitted that she broke the law," is not true.

Obviously, "evidence of potential violation" does not mean that that "a law was broken," as you claim, but that there was evidence of a potential violation.

I suggest that you be more scrupulous, and not allow partisanship to distort what you purport to quote to suit your agenda.

 

I suggest that you buy a legal dictionary or take a Law 101 class at your local Community College. "Evidence of potential violation" is evidence that a law has been broken. If the Director of the FBI claims that there is evidence that a law has been broken. It probable has been. So, I prosecution rests. Hillary Clinton did violate Federal Statute 18 USC 793(f), and could be found guilty of Espionage in a court of law.

Now, I have had this argument with a lot of members on this board. It is time for you Clinton supporters to find a new lie to push. This one has been thoroughly debunked. To quote Hillary, it is time to MoveOn.

 

You lefties rip on Trump because he has no experience and then he hires experience and the ripping continues. Boy the next 4 years are going to be fun, for us.

 

"Evidence of potential violation" is evidence that a law might have been broken.

In Trump's case, there is ample evidence to prosecute, so Trump is going to trial in the Trump University fraud suit. There is sufficient evidence of potential violation(s) to demand a trial.

It has not yet been determined that "law has been broken."

You cannot presume that he has committed crimes until the court has actually heard the case and a verdict is delivered.

 

lol, 62% disapprove of the direction of the country under President Progress.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/other/direction_of_country-902.html

 

No, the court cannot. If you witness crimes being committed, for instance, you do not have to presume innocence. That is stupid. The cops who arrest people can only do so because they do not have to presume innocence. The head of the FBI cannot say, without ejudication, that a crime was commited, only that the evidence suggests it was. Please give up on this ludicrous argument.

 

Trump....."crooked Hillary".

Accurate characterization.

Enough said.

 

The best part of all of this is that the entire Obama administration will be sent fundamentally packing.

 

You play all the semantic games you want, but you are not changing the facts. Here is a link to the actual law. I have already provided you a link to what the Director said. You read the law, and what the FBI Director said, then make a point that she did not violate the law. To narrow it down for you, we are dealing with paragraph (f).

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/793

 

Like someone already said, Trump IS the outsider. He's appointing some insiders to carry out his outsider will. How difficult is that to understand? Oh wait....I get it. You're just playing word games. Nevermind. Very funny.

 

The inevitably poor "direction of country" numbers are not a verdict on any president alone, although hyper-partisans like to pretend that if it fits their agenda.

 

Stop squirming. There is insufficient evidence to prosecute Clinton for any crimes; there is sufficient evidence to prosecute Trump.

That does not mean you can impose you partisan spin in either matter.

- - - Updated - - -

For a true believer, certainly.

 

You can substitute your legal expertise for the FBI Director's if it pleasures you, but your partisan-motivated fantasy would demand that Congress impeach the FBI Director for failing to discharge his sworn duties. The reality that even Republicans in Congress, so antagonistic the Clinton, have not seriously considered such a silly action disposes of your nonsense.

 

The elite establishment m/billionaires are celebrating on Wall Street as one of their own gets the WH who will give them giant tax cuts. The same elites establishment that controlled Congress last term controls it now. Donald is picking Washington insiders and lobbyists to fill his government.

If you voted for Donald thinking you were getting some "anti-establishment" government who was going to fight for the common man, sorry.

You've been duped and conned by a charlatan.