lock her up

[wesw]

but do I mean Clinton?

..or lynch?

..or washer-woman Schultz?

take your pick, they re all crooked.

[Crackpot]

get the fuck over it

[Lord Jim]

but do I mean Clinton?

..or lynch?

..or washer-woman Schultz?

take your pick, they re all crooked.

I think what Clinton did was serious and that Comey laid out a very good case for indicting her...(though he didn't recommend indictment because he didn't think you could have a prosecution without proving intent...even though the statute specifically said intent was not required.)

And Loretta Lynch certainly acted improperly in instructing Comey not to call an investigation an "investigation"...

But at this point, those are matters of purely historical interest...

When it comes to being "crooked" the nine ton T-Rex in the room is a current President Of the United States attempting to obstruct justice, intimidate witnesses, and misuse public officials, all in an effort to shut down investigations into improper connections between him, members of his family, and close advisors (past and current) and the number one enemy regime of this country...

A regime that just did its level best to undermine the "government of the people , by the people, and for the people" that you were preaching about...

Given the enormous gravity of having an incumbent President vigorously engaged in these on-going efforts to subvert the course of justice, it's pretty obvious who the full investigative focus needs to be on...

(And it sure ain't Hillary Clinton, Loretta Lynch, or Debbie Pinocchio-Schultz )

It belongs on the person whose actions make him a clear and present danger to our democratic institutions...

When Trump whines and bellows about "How come I'm being investigated but nobody's investigating Hillary, or Obama?"

Here's an answer that even Il Boobce should be able to understand:

"It's because you're President and they're not."

[MajGenl.Meade]

I just quoted a bit of your post on Facebook, LJ. Proper accreditation was given (!).

However, I had to point out to my millions of very, very insightful followers that:

My only argument with LJ is that the number one enemy regime of this country is in Washington DC. The #2 enemy is in Moscow.

[Lord Jim]

My only argument with LJ is that the number one enemy regime of this country is in Washington DC. The #2 enemy is in Moscow.

Point taken.

[Lord Jim]

The regime of a person whose primary focus is to try every day, in every way he can come up with, to undermine and discredit all of the institutions in this country designed to serve as a check on a President's ability to become a tyrant (the courts, the congress, the press, the independence of the investigatory functions of the Justice Department)

The regime of a person who has also sought to undermine, discredit, and demoralize all of the foreign and domestic intelligence services that the country relies on to protect itself from enemies foreign and domestic...

The regime of a person who wages a systematic non-stop dis-information campaign (or as I have previously described it, a war on the very concept of "truth") designed to shatter the most essential element needed for a healthy democracy; the ability of the citizenry to make informed decisions...

Yes, no doubt about it; that regime is definitely the Number One enemy regime of this country...

[ex-khobar Andy]

LJ I wish you wouldn't talk so much sense. You make it very difficult for me to despise Republicans. I will have to reconsider my default mode.

[Scooter]

but do I mean...

Paul Manafort?

Or Jared Kushner?

Or Donald Trump Jr.?

Or Michael Flynn?

Or Carter Page?

Or Kellyanne Conway?

Or Roger Stone?

Or Ivanka Trump?

take your pick, they re all crooked.

Just as you say, wes.

Keep 'em coming, this is only just beginning to get really fun.

[Burning Petard]

x-k Andy, it is indeed a difficult position. Cognitive dissonance is a bitch, but the alternative, as I have recently learned is Anoesis.

So I will take the pain of reconsideration of who my enemies and allies really are.

snailgate