The Clintons ... are in the rear view mirror, along with their foundation that had ... what, $200 million when it was dissolved?So, according to the Daily Beast, the DOJ is going after the Hillary's email handling and the Clinton Foundation. This is going to be entertaining.
Yeah but if you have a current investigation on a collusion with Russia, money laundering, obstruction of justice - some people prefer the reruns of past stories to current reality.The Clintons ... are in the rear view mirror, along with their foundation that had ... what, $200 million when it was dissolved?
They should just forget about it, let it go.
To have these ongoing political vendettas going on continuously, is not good.
:apathy:
The Atlantic has a summary of the Wolff book, basically saying what's in the book is an 'open secret' like Weinstein's abuse.Wise people advised the Clintons and their bootlickers to let go and accept the results of the election. They didn't listen and Trump is a nasty individual to piss off. So, probably sometime last fall, he unleashed the DOJ. I predicted that this was going to happen.
https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2018/01/it-was-an-open-secret/549653/?utm_source=fbbBased on the excerpts now available, Fire and Fury presents a man in the White House who is profoundly ignorant of politics, policy, and anything resembling the substance of perhaps the world’s most demanding job. He is temperamentally unstable. Most of what he says in public is at odds with provable fact, from “biggest inaugural crowd in history” onward. Whether he is aware of it or not, much of what he asserts is a lie. His functional vocabulary is markedly smaller than it was 20 years ago; the oldest person ever to begin service in the White House, he is increasingly prone to repeat anecdotes and phrases. He is aswirl in foreign and financial complications. He has ignored countless norms of modern governance, from the expectation of financial disclosure to the importance of remaining separate from law-enforcement activities. He relies on immediate family members to an unusual degree; he has an exceptionally thin roster of experienced advisers and assistants; his White House staff operations have more in common with an episode of The Apprentice than with any real-world counterpart. He has a shallower reserve of historical or functional information than previous presidents, and a more restricted supply of ongoing information than many citizens. He views all events through the prism of whether they make him look strong and famous, and thus he is laughably susceptible to flattering treatment from the likes of Putin and Xi Jinping abroad or courtiers at home.
And, as Wolff emphasizes, everyone around him considers him unfit for the duties of this office.
...
I feel this way because I believe I chronicled signs of every one of these traits through the campaign cycle, in The Atlantic’s 162-installment “Trump Time Capsule” series. But practically anyone else in political journalism can make a similar claim. Who and what Trump is has been an open secret.
It was because of this open secret that nearly 11 million more Americans voted against Trump last year than for him, including the three million more who voted for Hillary Clinton. (The rest were for Gary Johnson, who got nearly 4.5 million; Jill Stein, with nearly 1.5 million; Evan McMullin, with about 700,000; and a million-plus write-ins.) It was because of this open secret that virtually every journalistic endorsement in the country went against him, including from publications (like The Dallas Morning News or The Arizona Republic) that are ordinarily rock-ribbed Republican, and others (like USA Today) that had not offered endorsements before or (like The Atlantic) generally did so only once per century. It was because of this that his party’s previous nominee, Mitt Romney, publicly denounced him—and that most of the political establishment, Democratic and Republican alike, assumed that no person like him could ever reach the White House.
(The shared certainty that Trump would fall short, which Wolff demonstrates extended to every part of the Trump campaign as well, may explain one of the major journalistic failures of the campaign: the disproportionate harping on Hillary Clinton’s email “problems,” as if this objectively third-tier failing were on a par with Trump’s grossly disqualifying traits. Most of the press assumed she would soon be in office; this was a warm-up for the kind of inspection real presidents should be prepared to undergo.)
Who is also in on this open secret? Virtually everyone in a position to do something about it, which at the moment means members of the Republican majority in Congress.
They know what is wrong with Donald Trump. They know why it’s dangerous. They understand—or most of them do—the damage he can do to a system of governance that relies to a surprising degree on norms rather than rules, and whose vulnerability has been newly exposed. They know—or should—about the ways Trump’s vanity and avarice are harming American interests relative to competitors like Russia and China, and partners and allies in North America, Europe, and the Pacific.
They know. They could do something: hearings, investigations, demands for financial or health documents, subpoenas. Even the tool they used against the 42nd president, for failings one percent as grave as those of the 45th: impeachment.
They know. They could act. And they don’t. The failure of responsibility starts with Mitch McConnell and Paul Ryan, but it doesn’t end with them. Every member of a bloc-voting majority shares responsibility for not acting on their version of the open secret. “Independent” Republicans like Susan Collins and Lisa Murkowski share it. “Thoughtful” ones, like Ben Sasse and Jeff Flake. Those (in addition to Flake) who have nothing to lose electorally, from Bob Corker to Orrin Hatch. When they vote as a majority against strong investigations, against subpoenas, against requirements for financial disclosure, and most of all against protecting Robert Mueller and his investigation, they share complicity in the open secret.
We are watching the political equivalent of the Weinstein board paying off the objects of his abuse. We are watching Fox pay out its tens of millions to O’Reilly’s victims. But we’re watching it in real time, with the secret shared worldwide, and the stakes immeasurably higher.
:crazy:The Clintons played a key role (and helped fund) the fake news story about Russian "collusion."
Having spent all of 2017 pushing the fake news story in order to undermine the results of the election, they shouldn't be surprised that the apparent racketeering at the Clinton Foundation is now being investigated.
There is fresh evidence that Strzok was a partisan who influenced decisions dealing both with the DNC hack and the Weiner laptop.In other words, there appears to be no fresh evidence to cause the renewed investigation. Trump appears to have done this - yet again! - to distract viewers from the bizarre train wreck of his own administration.
In any event, no one cares except his hard core supporters who obsess over HRC as being the poster girl for the "Swamp" and the antithesis of small town, traditional American values. The Clintons are distant past political news and most Dems are busy speculating who the new crop of presidential potentials will be.
The Clinton campaign tried to produce an October surprise or, as the FBI individuals were kind enough to describe in their emails, an "insurance". That needs to be investigated in depth and rigorously and the guilty parties need to be made example of. Can't have the tail wagging the dog.There is fresh evidence that Strzok was a partisan who influenced decisions dealing both with the DNC hack and the Weiner laptop.
And now we have word of unreported highly classified emails on the laptop.
I'd say that's enough for a second look. Strzok made them look bad. Better to clear the air.
You might have missed it but Hillary did concede the election and went for a walk in the woods.Wise people advised the Clintons and their bootlickers to let go and accept the results of the election. They didn't listen and Trump is a nasty individual to piss off. So, probably sometime last fall, he unleashed the DOJ. I predicted that this was going to happen.
And wrote a book....and apparently funded the whole Russia narrative. And possibly used a compromised FBI field director.You might have missed it but Hillary did concede the election and went for a walk in the woods.
The alt-right need to realize that Hillary isn't the president so their ridiculous crusade against her is pointless.
You could as easily make the argument that Trump won the election, and since no one has shown that he won because of Russian activity, best to just shelve this whole Russia investigation! Fact is, it's legitimate for Congress to secure elections from foreign interference, and it's legitimate for Congress to identify and resolve national security breaches committed by prior office holders in order to prevent future security breaches. In both cases however, it's best to wrap up these investigations in a timely fashion so that something can be done about either/both issues before the same mistakes are made all over again.You might have missed it but Hillary did concede the election and went for a walk in the woods.
The alt-right need to realize that Hillary isn't the president so their ridiculous crusade against her is pointless.
Oh no, a private citizen wrote a book? Throw the book at her.And wrote a book...
So did the GOP. And get this, so did the justice department....and apparently funded the whole Russia narrative....
And she's a private citizen with no political future. Time to let the witch-hunt go.Yup she is pure as the driven snow....
He did. Don't know how you missed that.You could as easily make the argument that Trump won the election,...
My point is that your positions on these issues are logically inconsistent.He did. Don't know how you missed that.
And the investigation will be shelved when the FBI feels they have enough information to decide whether to lay further charges or dismiss the case.
How so?My point is that your positions on these issues are logically inconsistent.
I've already explained this in post #15. Just read it.How so?