Yep. Nothing has changed. Hillary is still above the law.

Is that better of worse than Donald - who wants to be the law?

Donald is not above the law. He's not part of the ruling establishment; to them he's just an inconvenient interloper.

---

                                                                          

"Why should I give information to you when all you want to do is find something wrong with it?"

Is that better of worse than Donald - who wants to be the law?

Donald is not above the law. He's not part of the ruling establishment; to them he's just an inconvenient interloper.

So tell me - what's the deciding factor when trying to decide between one sleaze or the other?

---

The sun's not yellow, it's chicken.

Donald is not above the law. He's not part of the ruling establishment; to them he's just an inconvenient interloper.

So tell me - what's the deciding factor when trying to decide between one sleaze or the other?

Better dead than Dem.

---

“An empty vessel makes the loudest sound, so they that have the least wit are the greatest babblers.”. - Plato

Donald is not above the law. He's not part of the ruling establishment; to them he's just an inconvenient interloper.

So tell me - what's the deciding factor when trying to decide between one sleaze or the other?

When the first one is above the law and the second one is still subject to the law, you want the second one.

In the case of Hillary vs. Trump, Hillary put her personal finances above the country while in office, selling access and foreign policy for fat speaking fees and foreign money to the Clinton Foundation slush fund. So far Trump has not sold US foreign policy or access. Other than Israel, Trump has not made any favors for foreign leaders, and Israel is not funneling him money. If he did use US foreign policy in exchange fore money and personal favors, he would be impeached. If Hillary did it again, she wouldn't.

There's your difference.

---

                                                                          

"Why should I give information to you when all you want to do is find something wrong with it?"

For the record, I agree that Hillary Clinton is corrupt, and I am somewhat amazed that she has escaped the law so far.

My beef, as I have stated in this thread, is with the original post, which is completely incorrect. The executive order Trump signed has nothing to do with Hillary Clinton, because it only applies to foreigners, not domestic politicians.

---

So tell me - what's the deciding factor when trying to decide between one sleaze or the other?

Better dead than Dem.

Brain dead? Well, you're right about that.

---

So tell me - what's the deciding factor when trying to decide between one sleaze or the other?

When the first one is above the law and the second one is still subject to the law, you want the second one.

In the case of Hillary vs. Trump, Hillary put her personal finances above the country while in office, selling access and foreign policy for fat speaking fees and foreign money to the Clinton Foundation slush fund. So far Trump has not sold US foreign policy or access. Other than Israel, Trump has not made any favors for foreign leaders, and Israel is not funneling him money. If he did use US foreign policy in exchange fore money and personal favors, he would be impeached. If Hillary did it again, she wouldn't.

There's your difference.

You seemed to have skipped over the Russia issue completely. Not surprised.

How do you think Donald got some of his deals funded? Why do you think he's bff with V. Putin? Why do you think Junior, et. al., jumped at the chance to have assistance from the Russians to get dirt on Hillary?

And yes, the "proof" of all that is just as strong as the "proof" on Hillary. Yet you'll believe one and dismiss the other. Funny how that works.

The Dems have their sleaze and you have yours. It seems that the American people don't like either all that much.

---

The sun's not yellow, it's chicken.

Better dead than Dem.

Brain dead? Well, you're right about that.

---

When the first one is above the law and the second one is still subject to the law, you want the second one.

In the case of Hillary vs. Trump, Hillary put her personal finances above the country while in office, selling access and foreign policy for fat speaking fees and foreign money to the Clinton Foundation slush fund. So far Trump has not sold US foreign policy or access. Other than Israel, Trump has not made any favors for foreign leaders, and Israel is not funneling him money. If he did use US foreign policy in exchange fore money and personal favors, he would be impeached. If Hillary did it again, she wouldn't.

There's your difference.

You seemed to have skipped over the Russia issue completely. Not surprised.

How do you think Donald got some of his deals funded? Why do you think he's bff with V. Putin? Why do you think Junior, et. al., jumped at the chance to have assistance from the Russians to get dirt on Hillary?

And yes, the "proof" of all that is just as strong as the "proof" on Hillary. Yet you'll believe one and dismiss the other. Funny how that works.

The Dems have their sleaze and you have yours. It seems that the American people don't like either all that much.

You only said circumstantial evidence (hardly even that). 

Is it collusion when you work out deals with other countries? No. 

Trump isn't best friends with Putin. He only realizes that there's no reason to be hostile to them like Clinton wanted. I'd put money on you defending Obama when he tried to appease other countries. 

Jumped at the chance? You do realize that the dossier was purchased by Clinton and the DNC so they could jump at the chance, right? 

You can't honestly believe that the proof given in a fake dossier, which was first report by freakin' BuzzFeed because no one else would, is the same as the things Hillary is known to have done? If you genuinely believe they're the same then there's no point talking about it.

---

Brain dead? Well, you're right about that.

---

You seemed to have skipped over the Russia issue completely. Not surprised.

How do you think Donald got some of his deals funded? Why do you think he's bff with V. Putin? Why do you think Junior, et. al., jumped at the chance to have assistance from the Russians to get dirt on Hillary?

And yes, the "proof" of all that is just as strong as the "proof" on Hillary. Yet you'll believe one and dismiss the other. Funny how that works.

The Dems have their sleaze and you have yours. It seems that the American people don't like either all that much.

You only said circumstantial evidence (hardly even that). 

Is it collusion when you work out deals with other countries? No. 

Trump isn't best friends with Putin. He only realizes that there's no reason to be hostile to them like Clinton wanted. I'd put money on you defending Obama when he tried to appease other countries. 

Jumped at the chance? You do realize that the dossier was purchased by Clinton and the DNC so they could jump at the chance, right? 

You can't honestly believe that the proof given in a fake dossier, which was first report by freakin' BuzzFeed because no one else would, is the same as the things Hillary is known to have done? If you genuinely believe they're the same then there's no point talking about it.

Hey - you could work for Fox News!

Do you live in a cave? I'm not talking about the dossier, I'm talking about Junior's meeting with the woman who later said she just wanted to talk about adoptions.

Oh, and what about Junior dealing with Wikileaks, which we all know if the front for Russian hacking?

It must be nice living in that warm, safe Fox/Brietbart bubble.

---

The sun's not yellow, it's chicken.

You only said circumstantial evidence (hardly even that). 

Is it collusion when you work out deals with other countries? No. 

Trump isn't best friends with Putin. He only realizes that there's no reason to be hostile to them like Clinton wanted. I'd put money on you defending Obama when he tried to appease other countries. 

Jumped at the chance? You do realize that the dossier was purchased by Clinton and the DNC so they could jump at the chance, right? 

You can't honestly believe that the proof given in a fake dossier, which was first report by freakin' BuzzFeed because no one else would, is the same as the things Hillary is known to have done? If you genuinely believe they're the same then there's no point talking about it.

Hey - you could work for Fox News!

Do you live in a cave? I'm not talking about the dossier, I'm talking about Junior's meeting with the woman who later said she just wanted to talk about adoptions.

Oh, and what about Junior dealing with Wikileaks, which we all know if the front for Russian hacking?

It must be nice living in that warm, safe Fox/Brietbart bubble.

---

“An empty vessel makes the loudest sound, so they that have the least wit are the greatest babblers.”. - Plato

You only said circumstantial evidence (hardly even that). 

Is it collusion when you work out deals with other countries? No. 

Trump isn't best friends with Putin. He only realizes that there's no reason to be hostile to them like Clinton wanted. I'd put money on you defending Obama when he tried to appease other countries. 

Jumped at the chance? You do realize that the dossier was purchased by Clinton and the DNC so they could jump at the chance, right? 

You can't honestly believe that the proof given in a fake dossier, which was first report by freakin' BuzzFeed because no one else would, is the same as the things Hillary is known to have done? If you genuinely believe they're the same then there's no point talking about it.

Hey - you could work for Fox News!

Do you live in a cave? I'm not talking about the dossier, I'm talking about Junior's meeting with the woman who later said she just wanted to talk about adoptions.

Oh, and what about Junior dealing with Wikileaks, which we all know if the front for Russian hacking?

It must be nice living in that warm, safe Fox/Brietbart bubble.

There's a huge difference between talking to a random Russian (even if she provided dirt on Hillary, which she didn't), vs. actually receiving money from a Russian government official after being involved in a deal that benefited the Russian government. It's not illegal to listen to what someone tells you, even if it's unapproved speech by the Left. It is illegal (and within the realm of treason) to sell US foreign policy for personal gain. OTOH, there was a payment from Hillary's campaign to Russia for (fabricated) dirt on Trump. Your princess had more dealings with Russia during the campaign than Trump.

What dealing did Junior have with Wikileaks? That someone told him about a story that was already released? Oh, the horrors! Time for the firing squad!

The evidence on Hillary is very strong. Although it may not stand up in court, it's obvious to anyone not totally clueless. Hillary pushed through the Uranium One deal. At the same time Bill got a fat speaking fee from a Russian official. And there are other instances of pay for policy involving Arab countries. You might want to note that the foreign gifts to the Clinton Foundation and fat speaking fees for Bill and Hillary dried up after Hillary no longer was in position to channel favors to foreign governments.

Are you going to claim that receiving payments in conjunction with Hillary's government decisions was just a coincidence? Talk about a warm safe bubble. 

---

                                                                          

"Why should I give information to you when all you want to do is find something wrong with it?"

You only said circumstantial evidence (hardly even that). 

Is it collusion when you work out deals with other countries? No. 

Trump isn't best friends with Putin. He only realizes that there's no reason to be hostile to them like Clinton wanted. I'd put money on you defending Obama when he tried to appease other countries. 

Jumped at the chance? You do realize that the dossier was purchased by Clinton and the DNC so they could jump at the chance, right? 

You can't honestly believe that the proof given in a fake dossier, which was first report by freakin' BuzzFeed because no one else would, is the same as the things Hillary is known to have done? If you genuinely believe they're the same then there's no point talking about it.

Hey - you could work for Fox News!

Do you live in a cave? I'm not talking about the dossier, I'm talking about Junior's meeting with the woman who later said she just wanted to talk about adoptions.

Oh, and what about Junior dealing with Wikileaks, which we all know if the front for Russian hacking?

It must be nice living in that warm, safe Fox/Brietbart bubble.

Do you copy-and-paste all of your posts?

I don't watch Fox News, but that's the response I expect from someone that can't prove their point. 

I brought up the dossier because Clinton and the DNS "jumped at the chance" as you described it. You made it sound like, because Jr. went to get dirt on Clinton, that it proves collusion when it unequivocally does not. There's absolutely nothing illegal in what he did. If it were illegal then you'd be able to point out which law he broke.

Wikileaks is not a front for Russian hacking. Just because you said that it is, it doesn't make it so. Hillary used that talking point to deflect from he criminal activity. She was blaming the Russians before there was time to figure out who did it. Assange has already said the Russian government didn't do it. More than likely, it was someone from within the DNC.

---

Hey - you could work for Fox News!

Do you live in a cave? I'm not talking about the dossier, I'm talking about Junior's meeting with the woman who later said she just wanted to talk about adoptions.

Oh, and what about Junior dealing with Wikileaks, which we all know if the front for Russian hacking?

It must be nice living in that warm, safe Fox/Brietbart bubble.

---

This Order having been enacted by other presidents, but trump has  this one finely tuned to put the shackles on Hillary 

Good luck putting shackles on those cankles.

Now there's an image I didn't need bouncing around inside my dome.

Thanks........

---

What lies behind us, and what lies before us are tiny matters compared to what lies within us.







 

Good luck putting shackles on those cankles.

Now there's an image I didn't need bouncing around inside my dome.

Thanks........

---

So tell me - what's the deciding factor when trying to decide between one sleaze or the other?

When the first one is above the law and the second one is still subject to the law, you want the second one.

In the case of Hillary vs. Trump, Hillary put her personal finances above the country while in office, selling access and foreign policy for fat speaking fees and foreign money to the Clinton Foundation slush fund. So far Trump has not sold US foreign policy or access. Other than Israel, Trump has not made any favors for foreign leaders, and Israel is not funneling him money. If he did use US foreign policy in exchange fore money and personal favors, he would be impeached. If Hillary did it again, she wouldn't.

There's your difference.

Interesting that CoCo Brown is serving a 5 year prison sentence, and Cankles is still looking bullet-proof.

---

Now there's an image I didn't need bouncing around inside my dome.

Thanks........

Meh, it ain't so bad after all......

---

What lies behind us, and what lies before us are tiny matters compared to what lies within us.







 

Time will tell, the can of Clinton reopened

---

“You may never know what results come of your actions, but if you do nothing, there will be no results.”
“If you find a way to motivate an idiot you have a motivated idiot”

You only said circumstantial evidence (hardly even that). 

Is it collusion when you work out deals with other countries? No. 

Trump isn't best friends with Putin. He only realizes that there's no reason to be hostile to them like Clinton wanted. I'd put money on you defending Obama when he tried to appease other countries. 

Jumped at the chance? You do realize that the dossier was purchased by Clinton and the DNC so they could jump at the chance, right? 

You can't honestly believe that the proof given in a fake dossier, which was first report by freakin' BuzzFeed because no one else would, is the same as the things Hillary is known to have done? If you genuinely believe they're the same then there's no point talking about it.

Hey - you could work for Fox News!

Do you live in a cave? I'm not talking about the dossier, I'm talking about Junior's meeting with the woman who later said she just wanted to talk about adoptions.

Oh, and what about Junior dealing with Wikileaks, which we all know if the front for Russian hacking?

It must be nice living in that warm, safe Fox/Brietbart bubble.

Hold on, you have evidence Wikileaks is a front for Russian hacking?  That’s quite the claim.

---