Posted on 03/18/2016 12:35:24 AM PDT by Zakeet
Complete Headline: The Gloves Are Off: Trump Accuses Hillary Of Being "Involved In Corruption For Most Of Her Professional Life"
It's popcorn time.
Barely 24 hours after Trump launched his first Hillary attack ad in which he showed a laughing Putin respond to a barking Hillary, and shortly after Hillary's SuperPAC responded in kind with an ad of its own in which it used a Trump quote to mock him, the gloves are officially off, and now that both presidential candidates - both convinced they will face off against each other - are beyond the foreplay stage, the gloves have come off and the direct attacks are escalating rapidly.
So rapidly, in fact, that one may say Trump is risking a potential lawsuit with the following accusation (which, however, should not be too difficult to prove should one of Hillary's SuperPACs sue him for libel).
This is what Trump tweeted moments ago.
Hillary Clinton has been involved in corruption for most of her professional life!
— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) March 18, 2016
This is more than your typical political ad hominem - this is a material allegation with legal implications that goes to the core of Hillary's biggest weakness, her trustworthiness or complete lack thereof, and Trump's charges will only escalate from here on out, hopefully with actual examples. We look forward to Hillary's response.
One thing is certain: for the next six months, America will be entertained.
I think it is a function of how we evaluate people. I have always had a difficult time reading people and wind up constantly surprised. People I think I can trust turn out to be unreliable and people of whom I expect nothing wind up coming through.
So I rely on things that I can see and measure. If somebody doesn’t have a record I can evaluate, they can sing the most wonderful tune and I will still not trust them. People who make big promises with nothing tangible to back them up just leave me cold.
But there are people very different from me who are more adept at making such judgements, and they respond very differently.
I think Obama was like that. So many of my friends were swept up, and I never saw what they saw in him. He struck me as a con artist and I think events have borne out that judgement. But perhaps I learned that lesson too well.
I like Cruz because I see what he has done, I like what he has done, and I am reasonably confident that he will continue along the same path. I am constitutionally unable to make a leap of faith to an unknown quantity like Trump, but I also recognize that I am very limited in this regard.
Outside of Ted's filibuster against Obamacare, what has he actually accomplished as a Senator?
What bills did he write or sponsor that made it to a floor vote?
If he did write or sponsor any legislation, did any of it pass?
Did he even co-sponsor any landmark legislation?
I know that he did well with cases before the Supreme Court, but he was an appointed Solicitor General, by then Texas Attorney General, Greg Abbott. Ted argued the cases that were assigned to him. He didn't bring those cases before the court, himself.
I know that Ted was an excellent student in law school, and was a top debater. He's well known for that.
So, besides those few things, can you tell me what Ted's actually done in his government career that makes you believe he's such an outstanding conservative?
Remember - talk is cheap.
Cruz has DONE nothing and ACCOMPLISHED nothing compared to what Trump has accomplished in his life, ARE THESE CRUZ SUPPORTERS KIDDING ME!!!! I mean I am astounded by this nonsense Windflier!!!
http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2016/01/ted-cruz-supreme-court-conservative-213497
Cruz was more pro-active in finding conservative causes than you might think.
Excerpts:
From the start, it offered a chance to turn his legal acumen into political potential, because it came with a green light to advance conservative aims in the courts. Abbott’s directive for the solicitor general of Texas, Cruz said in his book, was to “look across the country” and “identify chances to defend conservative principles.”
This is not the traditional definition of a solicitor general’s job...
The way Cruz did the job? Even the defense was offense, and the interests being asserted were less those of the state than its conservative leaders.
“Texas is a huge state, and there’s plenty of work for the attorney general’s office to do,” said Jim Ho, an attorney in Dallas who succeeded Cruz as solicitor general and is a friend and supporter. Cruz, though, “was not content to simply do what was asked and go home.”
When it came to cases that allowed him to argue for things like the forceful application of the death penalty and expressions of religion in the public arena and against things like abortion and gun control, Ho told me, Cruz “was on constant watch for opportunities to press a conservative vision of the Constitution.”
Ted should have either continued to be a top tier attorney for the state of Texas, or he should have settled into the Senate and gained some maturity in that position before running for president.
He was on the right track, and was making a fine reputation for himself. I think he allowed his head to get too big, and jumped the gun on seeking the top office.
Like Obama before him, he thought far too much of himself, and would likely wind up being just as big a disaster as Obama has (albeit for different reasons).
Legislators make lousy presidents. Especially first term newbies.
The fight against the budget and the debt ceiling were a pretty big deal. He was one of the few Senators willing to fight. That is what we want, right?
The Supreme court fights are a pretty big deal, too.
“The fight against the budget and the debt ceiling were a pretty big deal. He was one of the few Senators willing to fight. That is what we want, right?”
That’s all good. He should have stayed on the job and kept doing what we Texans sent him to Washington to do.
If I’d known he was going to pull an Obama, and bail after a couple of years to seek higher office, I would never have voted for him.
“C’mon! Tell me that watching her try to explain why she charged $500,000 for a half hour speech to a group of bankers, in open court, isn’t the most fun you can have with your clothes on!”
Watching it with my clothes off wouldn’t be any less fun, just a lot kinkier.
Not investment advice Stanne, but did you see the market this week after Super Tuesday? It is obtuse for me to observe that perhaps the smart money now had Certainty, aka Trump would be victor and were getting ready from an investment standpoint in advance of the herd to be aboard his economy's potential growth?
Wall St is a better barometer than fox pundits that’s for sure. They should go on retreat once in a while or live in suburbia and talk to people. They do not know
And they think they can affect the outcome. Not on this one. A flawed leader is all it takes. Trump is not changing anyone’s mind. He’s tapping into it. That’s all
Well, it’s looking more and more like he will still be in the Senate next year.
“Well, it’s looking more and more like he will still be in the Senate next year.”
Give it another couple of weeks, and I think that will be obvious to most voters.
Yep. And where is Craig Livingstone now, I wonder? He stole em for her.
Hillary Clinton has been involved in corruption for most of her professional life!
— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump)
I guess we can now call him Captain Obvious.
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.