Hillary running for POTUS .

[Doug S.]

Condi Rice would get my vote as well, and I think she has a lot of experience to draw on.

Doug, As far as Benghazi, she was Secretary Of State that was her job. And shoes bigger than hers said these people would be brought to justice. Right.

Well, those in the "bigger shoes", both in the current administration and prior administrations have made such promises and at times it has taken a while to identify the perps, locate them and capture them (or worse)....look at all the time that it took to capture Saddam Hussein and locate and "neutralize" Osamma Bin Laden. Likewise those in those big shoes have identified the party from Great Brittain who is the "mouthpiece" for ISIS and I have no doubt that the party will either be captured or meet a rather unpleasant ending.

If I were the jihadist parties responsible for the assault on the Benghazi consulate, I would not underestimate the resolve of the United States, regardless of whether the POTUS who made those remarks is still in office or not...:idea:

Patience, Grasshopper....... :thumbsup:

Cheers!

Doug

 

[Pat]

As for the email issue...well, as I understand it, during the time Hillary was SOS there was NO REQUIREMENT that a governmental email account be used...that requirement was implemented after she resigned from that position.

This was in effect in 2013 when Mrs. Clinton resigned from her Secretary of State position.

18 USC 2071 – Concealment, removal, or mutilation generally

(a) Whoever willfully and unlawfully conceals, removes, mutilates, obliterates, or destroys, or attempts to do so, or, with intent to do so takes and carries away any record, proceeding, map, book, paper, document, or other thing, filed or deposited with any clerk or officer of any court of the United States, or in any public office, or with any judicial or public officer of the United States, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years, or both.

(b) Whoever, having the custody of any such record, proceeding, map, book, document, paper, or other thing, willfully and unlawfully conceals, removes, mutilates, obliterates, falsifies, or destroys the same, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years, or both; and shall forfeit his office and be disqualified from holding any office under the United States. As used in this subsection, the term "office" does not include the office held by any person as a retired officer of the Armed Forces of the United States.

"...withholding relevant and material evidence or information from lawfully authorized
investigative officers and employees of the United States" from the first article of Richard Nixon's Impeachment. Nixon was missing 18 1/2 minutes of White House tape, Mrs. Clinton destroyed 31,830 emails from a server containing public records. But she's entitled and she's a Clinton so "What difference at this point does it make?".

Mrs. Clinton will certainly win her party's nomination and when the media smear machine is finished with her Republican challenger, she will have an easy stroll to the Oval Office. All she has to do is avoid a "Howard Dean moment" or other massive screw up and the job is hers. For her singular accomplishment is she married Bill Clinton.

 

[Doug S.]

OK...so no legal requirement at that time that she use a governmental email address...glad that's settled :thumbsup: .

Now the only issue is whether or not she turned over all the governmental emails from her personal account before she wiped the server clean.

IMHO H.C. has demonstrated that she has acceptable compliance with regulations...just a personal opinion based on what I've seen from her (including the grilling she endured at the hands of the Tea Party over Benghazi)....so unless somebody has some kind of proof-positive that she did not turn over all the governmental related items from her personal email account I fail to see how she can be compared to Nixon and his missing 18 1/2 minutes from the audio tapes (however, for a new perspective on that, try to find the CD of Arlo Guthrie's "remake" of Alice's Restaurant...it offers a rather interesting connection to those 18 1/2 minutes of missing conversation).

So...here's how I see this all playing out.....Hillary runs, has great popular support...but the radical conservative contingent of the Republican Party can't just leave it alone, they will attack her mercilessly, which will result in further alienation of the mainstream voter and increase even further the chances she will be elected.

Personally, I'm glad to see the TEA Party not getting so much press these days, but they are still a rather powerful force within the conservative movement. We'll see if they can see that their form of vicious attacks on H.C. will only serve to work in her favor.

Sometimes people can be their own worst enemy :idea: .

Cheers!

Doug

 

[Al Wohlstrom]

Veek quote "For her singular accomplishment is she married Bill Clinton." So using that we could have Brett Farve's wife be QB of the Packers, he was at GB for 16 years.

 

[Larry L.]

...the radical conservative contingent of the Republican Party..will attack her mercilessly...We'll see if they can see that their form of vicious attacks on H.C. will only serve to work in her favor.

Sometimes people can be their own worst enemy :idea: .

Hmmmmmmm...mebbe wunna those "radical conservatives" oughta stand up on the senate floor and declare Hillary hasn't paid her income taxes for the past 10 years. Or mebbe they should just parrot the choice comments the left has made about Bachmann or Palin and just swap in Hillary's name.

Whadaya think? Fair game, no?

For your side, just quoting Hillary's own words is all it will take to qualify as a "merciless attack", 'innit'.

 

[Doug S.]

Veek quote "For her singular accomplishment is she married Bill Clinton."

Yeah...Veek should have "IMHO"ed that one. The fact is that H.C. has had some rather significant accomplishments...I'm not sure marrying Bill Clinton was one of them, he doesn't exactly have a great history of being faithful...remember Jennifer Flowers? He was having an affair with her while he was governor of AR, IIRC. Hillary is too smart to have NOT known about that, so why she endured all those indiscretions over the years is her business and nobody else's.

She's had more major accomplishment than the average bear, that's for sure!

...will POTUS be her next?

Cheers!

Doug

 

[Doug S.]

Hmmmmmmm...mebbe wunna those "radical conservatives" oughta stand up on the senate floor and declare Hillary hasn't paid her income taxes for the past 10 years. Or mebbe they should just parrot the choice comments the left has made about Bachmann or Palin and just swap in Hillary's name.

WOW, Larry, talk about comparing apples to oranges!

Do you really think Bachmann or "I can see Russia from my back yard" Palin are in the same league with H.C.? Palin was a joke and cost McCain the election. Bachmann was "laughable" at best...just an angry woman was all I saw from her. It's difficult to decide which was the worst between Palin and Bachmann...but, who cares, neither of them could hold a candle to H.C. in any kind of intellectual manner, although I must admit I'd enjoy watching the blood-bath if they tried :thumbsup: !!

As for the 10 years without having paid her taxes...I'd like to hear more about that from a non-biased source of information...non-biased toward either the left or right. Each of those political entities has their own agenda, so each is equally suspect. That is just not right if it's true...but, having learned a lesson from Romney, I can report that she won't have to reveal her IRS information if she doesn't WANT to...although I can't imagine she would have as much to lose as did Romney. I was seriously worried about Romney's mental status until he decided not to try again for election as POTUS...talk about continuing with an ineffective strategy and expecting a different outcome, he's the poster child!!!!!

H.C. did say something once to the effect that "they" were broke at the end of Bill Clinton's presidency. That's hard to believe, but IMHO the pay for POTUS is not enough to make the job "worthwhile" from a financial standpoint, so perhaps she's right?

As I've said...this'll be interesting!

Cheers!

Doug

 

[Al Wohlstrom]

Yeah...Veek should have "IMHO"ed that one. The fact is that H.C. has had some rather significant accomplishments...I'm not sure marrying Bill Clinton was one of them, he doesn't exactly have a great history of being faithful...remember Jennifer Flowers? He was having an affair with her while he was governor of AR, IIRC. Hillary is too smart to have NOT known about that, so why she endured all those indiscretions over the years is her business and nobody else's.

She's had more major accomplishment than the average bear, that's for sure!

...will POTUS be her next?

Cheers!

Doug

And.....what exactly are they?

 

[Pat]

OK...so no legal requirement at that time that she use a governmental email address...glad that's settled

You are absolutely right Doug, Mrs. Clinton is allowed to have a non governmental email address. She also "did not have sexual relations with that woman ... Ms Lewinski"

But if you re-read my post, she violated a statute by destroying her emails that carries a fine, a three year prison term and shall "forfeit his office and be disqualified from holding any office under the United States". She also violated the Federal Records Act of 1950.

Under the Act, each federal agency is required to make and preserve records that

(1) document the organization, functions, policies, decisions, procedures, and essential transactions of the agency and

(2) provide the information necessary to protect the legal and financial rights of the government and of persons directly affected by the agency’s activities.

The Act defines a federal record without respect to format. Records include all books, papers, maps, photographs, machine-readable materials, or other documentary materials, regardless of physical form. In other words, emails.

According to her attorney, Mrs. Clinton decided to permanently delete all emails from her server. It appears she made the decision after October 28, 2014, when the Department of State for the first time asked the Secretary to return her public records to the Department.
This would be another violation of the statute.

Her destruction of the records was without the statutory authorization of the National Archives and Record Administration. In doing so she thwarted not only Freedom of Information Act inquires that predate her departure from office and her destruction defies a congressional subpoena. This is also in violation of the statutes.

Richard Nixon article of impeachment #4: "...interfering or endeavoring to interfere with the conduct of investigations by the Department of Justice of the United States, the Federal Bureau of Investigation, the office of Watergate Special Prosecution Force, and Congressional Committees".

Richard Nixon article of impeachment # 8: "...making or causing to be made false or misleading public statements for the purpose of deceiving the people of the United States into believing that a thorough and complete investigation had been conducted with respect to allegations of misconduct on the part of personnel of the executive branch of the United States and personnel of the Committee for the Re-election of the President, and that there was no involvement of such personnel in such misconduct". Benghazi anyone???

Now the best part. Who was a young attorney involved in the Nixon impeachment inquiry was one wait for it... Hillary Rodham Clinton.

Her supervisor, Jerry Zeifman said he supervised Mrs. Clinton as she worked on the team working on the Watergate impeachment inquiry, and that during the investigation Hillary Clinton had “…engaged in a variety of self-serving, unethical practices in violation of House rules” and he "could not — recommend her for any further positions.” I wonder if that includes POTUS.

Given the current and rather selective nature of the prosecutions by Mr. Holder's Justice Department, it is unlikely that anything will come of the email scandal. He'll also get the bottom of the IRS scandal and Fast and Furious Mexican gunrunning about the time OJ finds the real killer.

If Harry Reid can give gifts to his daughter out of campaign funds with impunity it's unlikely the next president Clinton will have much to worry about. Unless, like Senator Menendez, she chooses to cross swords with Valerie Jarrett and Mr. Obama.

"What difference at this point does it make?".

 

[Al Wohlstrom]

Scary isn't it!

 

[Larry L.]

WOW, Larry, talk about comparing apples to oranges!

Do you really think Bachmann or "I can see Russia from my back yard" Palin are in the same league with H.C.?

Try again. It was Tina Fey impersonating Palin who uttered that line. Palin actually said (during a 2008 interview with Charles Gibson(?) [on ABC anyway]), "They're our next-door neighbors (Russia), and you can actually see Russia from land here in Alaska, from an island in Alaska." But, the actual facts don't seem to matter.

'To answer your "same league" question - NOPE. I sure don't. They'd both have to study long and hard to even come close to Hillary in the political 'arts' of ducking, dodging, spinning, lying, evading, shifting blame and covering her butt...not to mention her ability to skirt the law.

Buuuuut, what difference at this point does it make?


Now, THIS is really 'rich':

As for the 10 years without having paid her taxes...I'd like to hear more about that from a non-biased source of information (Huh? No one I'm aware of has leveled that charge against her. What do you mean you'd "like to hear more about that"?!)...non-biased toward either the left or right. Each of those political entities has their own agenda, so each is equally suspect. That is just not right if it's true...(you know Reid's accusation was a bald faced lie. If you don't, you're the only person in the country for whom that's the case.) but, having learned a lesson from Romney, I can report that she won't have to reveal her IRS information if she doesn't WANT to...although I can't imagine she would have as much to lose as did Romney. (I'm sure you can't.) I was seriously worried about Romney's mental status until he decided not to try again for election as POTUS...talk about continuing with an ineffective strategy and expecting a different outcome, he's the poster child!!!!!

H.C. did say something once to the effect that "they" were broke at the end of Bill Clinton's presidency ("to the effect"!!!? That's e-x-a-c-t-l-y what she said!). That's hard to believe (no...it's impossible), but IMHO the pay for POTUS is not enough to make the job "worthwhile" from a financial standpoint, so perhaps she's right? (Oh, puhleeeze...you 'gotta' be kidding, right? I mean, even you can't be that blind to reality. Their govt salaries provide their parking meter money. Their big money comes from...uh...several other sources. Some of them mayhave been in the news lately.)

By any chance have you been taking night courses on 'spin' from her??????

 

[Pete McCluskey.]

Scary isn't it!

From an outsider looking in even more so.:shocked:

 

[Jack]

Indeed!

 

[Jim Rosenthal]

My position is that it makes very little difference who we elect President at this point. Our government is so paralyzed with partisan opprobrium that nothing will be accomplished no matter who sits in that office. We could bring Lincoln back from the dead and it STILL wouldn't make a bit of difference.

I'm much more interested to see if my prediction is true that Obama will get a seat on the Supreme Court at some point. Anyone want to bet against me?

 

[Pat]

Jim, save your money. The supreme court would involve too much time and effort for the current narcissist in chief. Think of the impact on his golf game and celebrity hobnobbing. He also would not get the public adulation he craves. He might go for head of the UN and declare himself CEO of the planet though, as long as he has Valerie Jarrett around to actually do the work.
Given the little evidence that Mr. Obama really likes to work very hard, in all likelihood, he'll go the route of Bill Clinton with massive speaking fees, funded world travel and several high paying board seats on the green companies the government is subsidizing. He would be the celebrity guest of every third world left wing dictator on the planet.
If Mrs. Clinton stumbles and somehow bungles the election, maybe he'll run again in four years. He'd probably win.

 

[Al Wohlstrom]

My position is that it makes very little difference who we elect President at this point. Our government is so paralyzed with partisan opprobrium that nothing will be accomplished no matter who sits in that office. We could bring Lincoln back from the dead and it STILL wouldn't make a bit of difference.

I'm much more interested to see if my prediction is true that Obama will get a seat on the Supreme Court at some point. Anyone want to bet against me?

That seems like a serious step down, I don't think BO's bionic ego would stand for that. Maybe some form of deity, with sumptuous paid vacation privileges of course.

 

[Doug S.]

Part of me says "Hell, yes!" to B.O. wanting to be a Supreme Court Justice...most politicos believe that the most lasting impact a POTUS can have is his Supreme Court nominations/confirmations, so if B.O. could gain a seat on the Supreme Court he could continue to promote his "agenda", so to speak. If B.O. wanted to be a Supreme Court Justice, though, I'd think he'd need to have some judicial experience (and I don't mean just as a lawyer, I mean as a judge). AFAIK he doesn't have that...but I'm by no means familiar with everything the man has done, so.....

I think he'll just "retire" soon as his second term is up and enjoy the "elder statesman" status that we give to our surviving Presidents...and, of course, rake in the $$$ on the lecture/speech circuit.

As for H.C., my feeling is that we NEED both parties involved in the decisions that impact our country. With the Republicans in the majority of the House and the Senate now, the only opportunity for that second party involvement is the executive office. Without that "check & balance" function, EITHER party who occupied all three positions of power could just run amok...and if you don't believe that the Repubs would do that, take a look at the radical right (TEA Party) and what they want to do.

The common man NEEDS to be represented by someone. IMHO the focus of the conservative movement in the U.S. is antithetical to the involvement of the middle class, it's all about making the rich even richer and HOPING that some of that will "trickle down" to the middle class. History has shown us that doesn't happen, the rich just keep the wealth and then bitch and moan when their taxes help support those who cannot even afford to buy food...

Our political system is SO broken! Jimbo was SOOOO right...it's no longer about doing what is best for our country, it's all about beating the opposition party into submission.

Doug

 

[Pat]

As for H.C., my feeling is that we NEED both parties involved in the decisions that impact our country. With the Republicans in the majority of the House and the Senate now, the only opportunity for that second party involvement is the executive office. Without that "check & balance" function, EITHER party who occupied all three positions of power could just run amok...and if you don't believe that the Repubs would do that, take a look at the radical right (TEA Party) and what they want to do.

Funny, I don't remember you supporting Republicans during Mr. Obama's first mid-term election when Democrats controlled the House, Senate, and the presidency to keep that "check and balance".
If you remember Mr. Obama at the time indicated that elections had consequences and that Republican's "...can come for the ride, but they gotta sit in back." Was he wrong? If you are supporting a Democrat to counter balance the Republican congress then in order to maintain the "check and balance function" you support the reelection of a Republican house and senate?

But your argument is fundamentally flawed given the actions of the Obama administration. Congress clearly has not been a "check & balance" function.

To quote from The Washington Post: "In unilaterally altering major legislation (welfare reform, immigration) he (Obama) has crossed a threshold that future presidents are likely to step over as well. If he can unilaterally decide not to enforce certain immigration laws future presidents can essentially ignore parts of tax, regulatory or civil rights statutes they don’t like. It is a recipe for serious damage to our constitutional system of checks and balances.

I somehow don't think the next Clinton presidency will be any less strident. Do you?

 

[Jim Rosenthal]

He can't run again. He's already served two terms. If he could run again, so would Bill, and bill isn't running again. Two terms is it.

There's only been one President who came back and served in the Supreme Court- Taft. But I suspect Obama wants to do it, and from time to time I've seen it mentioned. You heard it first from me, though.

As far as who is the next POTUS, I care less about this than I ever have before. The only one I really DON'T want is Ted Cruz. Anyone who can't get a mortgage to buy a house isn't someone I want in the White House.

 

[Jim Rosenthal]

And I think the last President who gave a fuck about ordinary folks was Lincoln. And that's a damn long time ago, and we're not going to see his like on Earth again. We'll get another fucking talking head who knows what we want better than we do.