This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
granchildren, condolence notes to friends as well as yoga routines, family vacations, the other things you typically discuss in random meetings with ex-Presidents whose wife is running for President while being under investigation by the FBI
She has already flip-flopped on this issue once and is starting to flip back again.
TPP does remove a ton of tariffs we currently have to pay, BUT it appears those savings are made up elsewhere in the agreement. So it's a general wash giving the illusion of "freer trade" but not really, and, as I said before, it only matters to us as individuals if the companies pass these "savings" on to us. If they don't, it doesn't really matter how many tariffs are lifted, doing so ONLY benefits the businesses and those who own stock in them thus creating a larger divide in our classes.
Whether that's true or not, no facts in the linked story are evidence of Clinton telling a "lie to get elected," and you were wrong when you suggested otherwise.
Well, given you don't really know what you're talking about here, it sure seems like you're wrong. There are little to no provisions that we know of in this thing that address protection of labor. But don't just take my word for it:
I guess I was wrong too. It's not even trickle down, it's just the rich getting richer.
No words for how improper. Hopefully this will lead to a cophony of calls for a special prosecutor.
Her excuse is almost worse, as transparent a lie as it is. Met to talk grandkids and reminisce -- as she is overseeing late stages of an investigation into his wife, who is running for President! That's a good idea. Of course it wasn't that, and that is an intractable problem. This is resign from office stuff.
You mean another round of calls for a special prosecutor? Cause it's already been rejected multiple times.
It's really not, but hey, keep saying it and maybe people will listen after the 1000th time you post basically the same thing.
Hey DP, the judge in your case just hung out with the husband of the opposing party in your multi-million dollar case for half an hour with no one else around. And that same guy gave her her start in the legal business. Feeling pretty good about things right now? Recusal motion for ex parte discussions doesn't even pop into your head???
Well it worked!
^^^^^^^Actual official believer in and proponent of conspiracies. ^^^^^^^Well it worked!
Lorretta Lynch is the epitome of integrity, whatever Mr. Ham believes in his conspiracy deluded mind. If she says they talked about being grandparents, then that's what they talked about.
No, it's completely normal and appropriate. Bill Clinton is not Hillary Clinton, Hillary Clinton has not been indicted or anything close to it by DOJ or anyone else, and the two made no effort to hide their friendly happenstance meeting, which by the way is a thing that happens all the time since many of these people live and work in the same neighborhoods of the same city.
You believe it's inappropriate because you believe that Hillary Clinton is under criminal investigation.
There isn't a lawsuit or investigation in America where a judge or decider of legal liability should be meeting privately with the spouse of someone they are adjudicating.
I didn't say Bill Clinton should run away.
Fair enough. Sorry for this, guys.
http://www.uscourts.gov/judges-judgeships/code-conduct-united-states-judges
Has the FBI or any Justice Department official ever stated that Hillary Clinton is under criminal investigation? If so, link?This has been established it's not a belief
Judges are people. They have social lives. They don't like being told they can't socialize with the people in their profession. Absent more, I'd lose any motion and I'd just get a pissed off judge.
That's a federal judge, in a court case, referring to an aide of Hillary's. I'm still waiting for the FBI or Justice Department to say, unequivocally, that Hillary Clinton is under criminal investigation. Or even that the email investigation is a criminal investigation.
Yes, in their court filing the DOJ claimed a privilege only reserved for criminal investigations. The federal judge confirmed this. Same proceeding the FBI filed - for maybe the third time - a statement that Hillary is under criminal investigation. This has been linked countless times for you.
If I'm following things correctly ... there is no judge, and there is no case, so that question doesn't seem relevant. When and if the AG files an action against Hillary, I agree that the judge should not meet with Hillary ex parte. (The AG still could, though, right? Assuming Hillary's attorney okays it...)
candidate.
