Posted on 06/19/2016 7:02:15 AM PDT by WayneDupreeShow
From “screwed” to “truly screwed?” Screwed is screwed, no matter what adjective is used.
She’s as rehearsed and polished in those answers as she was when she sat to be confirmed as AG. Lies like a rug without a qualm!
“Yes, I was at the WH talking to the president and we never discussed the tornado that just tore through DC. I would never discuss something like that with him.”
Your position on Hillary possible reason (wanting to 'avoid accountability to the people') is charitable to say the least... Knowing the Clinton perchance for selling influence and anything else not nailed down - I would assume worse. "Oh thanks for your $500,000 (for a 42 minute speech) and here's my private email address so we can keep in touch" - swap yoga positions etc...
Still as you say, it's a crime - but as stated on that's not quite that easy to understand for the average citizen. And that IS the goal of liberal elites.
Your position on Hillary's possible reason (wanting to 'avoid accountability to the people') is charitable to say the least... Knowing the Clinton perchance for selling influence and anything else not nailed down - I would assume worse. "Oh thanks for your $500,000 (for a 42 minute speech) and here's my private email address so we can keep in touch" - swap yoga positions etc...
Still as you say, it's a crime - but as stated on that's not quite that easy to understand for the average citizen. And that IS the goal of liberal elites.
If a liberal activist says that it’s so, it must be true.
Seems like the very definition of “appearance of conflict of interest”. Just like the SoS taking $10s of millions personally from countries and individuals the state department is dealing with.
When the state dept approved the arms sales or if the DoJ ends up not indicting then citizens can understandably think there is corruption. And that’s very damaging to the country even if the right decision was/is made and why government officials are supposed to avoid even the appearance of a conflict of interest.
Why did you excerpt your own material rather than posting the whole thing?
Is your actual goal to redirect FR’s traffic to your blog for fun and profit?
I don’t know; I’ve posted what she’s done, outraged, but neglected to name the former cabinet secretary (or even which administration) and had liberals come swarming to demand their head, and fume more when they find out it is Clinton (and wave Bernie flags.)
It is pretty easy to understand: No one believes a politician who hides something from the public is up to any good.
What she’s trying to say is, where there’s no investigation, there’s no conflict of interest. This sounds like Lynch sucking up to be the next flunky on SCOTUS.
Good point.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.