Hello:

Don't laugh..

Trump HAS the courts. He HAS the feckless congress. He HAS an armed and angry base. If he declares himself President For Life, who's gonna STOP him?

excon

Hello:

Don't laugh.. Trump HAS the courts. He HAS the feckless congress. If he declares himself President For Life, who's gonna STOP him?

excon

He already floated this issue several months ago when he congratulated the Chinese guy for declaring himself president for life (or whatever title he used). Not quite tongue-in-cheek he wondered whether that would be a thing for him, asked in a semi-joking way, but he was CLEARLY testing the waters to get a reaction.

I have no doubt whatsoever he would try to do this if he believed there was any chance of succeeding.

The mid-terms loom more and more important every day.

I wouldn't put it past a congress controlled by the Dufus's sycophants to try and extend the terms of a president. It took an act of congress to limit the terms of service AFTER Roosevelt died. What you didn't know a congress could do that?

https://www.thoughtco.com/why-presidents-only-serve-two-terms-3367979




Why the Number of Presidential Terms Is Limited
Congressional Republicans proposed the constitutional amendment banning presidents from serving more than two terms in response to Roosevelt's four election victories. Histories have written that the party felt such a move was the best way to invalidate the popular Democrat's legacy.


"At the time, an amendment limiting presidents to two terms in office seemed an effective way to invalidate Roosevelt's legacy, to discredit this most progressive of presidents," wrote professors James MacGregor Burns and Susan Dunn in The New York Times.

Now getting enough states to pass such a thing is something I doubt but you never know.

Elections have consequences in case the dufus and his sycophants haven't depressed you enough.

If he tries then I will join the resistence . Any other fantasy questions ?


It took an act of congress to limit the terms of service AFTER Roosevelt died.

It's called an amendment …. 2/3 od both houses of Congress proposed it and 3/4 of the states ratified it .Clearly THE PEOPLE did not want a President for life.
Your facts are a bit off .
The measure passed 285–121, with support from 47 Democrats in the House . In the Senate the amended proposal was passed 59–23, with 16 Democrats in favor. The States ratification ? 41 States ratified .


Two states:Oklahoma and Massachusetts rejected the amendment, and five (Arizona, Kentucky, Rhode Island, Washington, and West Virginia) took no action . So to imply that this was solely a Republican amendment does not jive with history .

You're nit picking Tom. Are you and JL colluding?

nitpicking ? It was overwheming bi-partisan results and the correct call. FDR was tired and worn out after 8 years . Had war not broken out in 1942 he would've been soundly defeated . The next 4 years killed him He was a shell of himself at Yalta and Stalin played him like a fiddle ; and the people of Central Europe paid the price for 40 years .

Depends on what he promises the leaders of government (or if he merely throws them in prison, well at least all the Democrats.

If he brings back ecomony, brings in troops to stop the crime crime ( and use them to control the people)

It has worked before. They did it, just last year in China. But he would have find other Supreme Court members quilty of brides, or something and have them put in prison. Along with all of the opposing party. And if any one protests, they are quietly put in jail also (or re-education camps)

I lived this first hand in China, it is actually easy to do.

Depends on what he promises the leaders of government (or if he merely throws them in prison, well at least all the Democrats.

If he brings back ecomony, brings in troops to stop the crime crime ( and use them to control the people)

It has worked before. They did it, just last year in China. But he would have find other Supreme Court members quilty of brides, or something and have them put in prison. Along with all of the opposing party. And if any one protests, they are quietly put in jail also (or re-education camps)

I lived this first hand in China, it is actually easy to do.

Developed a bad stutter in China Chuck?


nitpicking ? It was overwheming bi-partisan results and the correct call. FDR was tired and worn out after 8 years . Had war not broken out in 1942 he would've been soundly defeated . The next 4 years killed him He was a shell of himself at Yalta and Stalin played him like a fiddle ; and the people of Central Europe paid the price for 40 years .

You can't blame FDR for the Cold War, Churchhill was as much to blame as anyone, and you can't blame the Russians for a paranoid response, wanting to gut Germany for all time. The big mistake was to use the atomic bomb, it made sure the Russians would develop the bomb and have a stand off with the west.

If he tries then I will join the resistence ..

Hello tom:

Well then, I feel better..

excon

Trump can't be President for life for the same reason Obama couldn't. Constitutional changes put in place after Truman. Changing that is well beyond what Obama could do, same as Trump. Besides not even Trump claims to WANT to do that... Besides that, there is this pesky little thing called voters.

Why would anyone want the stress for life, the job is obviously aging

You're nit picking Tom. Are you and JL colluding?

Tom, anytime you actually present facts and evidence, you are accused of nitpicking. Some here don't like the truth. They much prefer their own extreme fantasy world of collusion and lifetime presidents.

I have no problem with Toms FACTS, just his presumption that I implied it was repubs alone who pushed for presidential term limits... after Truman I might add, but I specifically said the CONGRESS, which is repubs and dems.

I just threw your name into the mix JL to get you riled up. 8) Plus let's face it, you never know what this whack-o-doodle in the white house will do next, especially with his sycophant trumpsters behind him. With heroes like Kim, Vlad, Chi, and Rodrigo as role models all it would take is a bunch of loony right wingers holding their nose at such a power grab... AGAIN.

Or a WAR!

With heroes like Kim, Vlad, Chi, and Rodrigo as role models all it would take is a bunch of loony right wingers holding their nose at such a power grab... AGAIN.

Or a WAR!

I think you've missed your calling. With your vivid imagination, you need to become a writer of fiction. Come to think of it, you already are! (<:

Think I should stick with cartoons?

https://www.arcamax.com/newspics/166/16678/1667803.gif

Think they have enough evidence for you?

I'm glad you used the word "evidence". Now if you could just find some of it. So far that has proven to be a problem.

You don't believe the intelligence community of your government? You may be able to make a case that DIRECT evidence of colluding with the Russians against the dufus does not exist yet, but not against VLAD. Why would HIS intelligence operatives and hacker be sanctioned and under criminal indictment?

Because they are guilty of something. And why is it that there are not even charges being brought against the Trump campaign? Because there is no evidence. Just because you want him to be guilty does not make him guilty.

Not just Russians at the behest of Vlad, but;

Flynn
Gates
Manafort
Papadopoulos
Cohen

That's a lot of TOP guys guilty of something so far. But of course you knew that. Some coincidence huh? Are we seeing a real investigation at work? Or another one about to start?

https://www.businessinsider.com/new-york-times-trump-wealth-story-can-trump-face-investigation-charges-2018-10

Or could we look into that Saudi journalist disappearing in Turkey? I think the evidence is mounting to prove MY longstanding claim that Trump is a lying, cheating, dufus. Take you pick of what he is guilty of already.

What a pity it is difficult to be guilty of treason these days, in earlier times it was much easier

Flynn
Gates
Manafort
Papadopoulos
Cohen

Now which of those guys have been accused of collusion with the Russians? Answer of course is none. In the meantime it is a certainty that CNN colluded with the Clinton campaign to try and get her elected, but I suppose that is of no consequence.

Is it possible that the Trump campaign received information from Russians that proved to be useful in the campaign? I imagine that is quite possible, just like the Clinton campaign likely did the same thing, and if not with Russians, then with other foreign individuals. If you believe these things don't happen, then you need to re-read the old classic Polly Anna Runs for President. So far as I am aware, it is not illegal to do any of that.

Well maybe this will explain the mess (https://www.vox.com/world/2017/2/15/14620560/trump-flynn-russia-campaign), and save me a lot of typing, and while I am aware of the allegations against Hillary and the dems by the dufus sycophants and hold your nosers, I figure, at least hope Mueller will thoroughly investigate the role that everybody played in the Russian election interference case.

So far we just have Russians and dufus campaign workers, and though they have not been charged with anything other than lying to investigators, except Manafort who has numerous convictions in one of his trials for criminal activities, they all are cooperating with Mueller. Too soon to say who knew what and did what, as the investigation continues.

Just the other day they got some young guy from California for selling stolen bank account numbers and a few of his buyers were Russians funneling money to fund operations here in the US. He pleaded guilty and is cooperating with law enforcement. I'm just going to say since it's ongoing we will see what happens next... and to whom.

I'm satisfied to let the investigation, and the process of law take it's course and go wherever are you?

I'm satisfied to let the investigation, and the process of law take it's course and go wherever are you?

I absolutely am, and I'm glad to hear that you are as well. Remember, I'm the one who actually believes in following the trail of evidence.

To be clear, evidence has to be submitted in a court of law, until then it's just a lead to follow and verify. Is that also your understanding?

Just a lead to follow? No, evidence is what we look at when we are trying to establish the truth. It doesn't matter if it's a court of law or the court of public opinion. If a person is genuinely interested in the truth, then he/she will look first at the evidence.

Just a lead to follow? No, evidence is what we look at when we are trying to establish the truth. It doesn't matter if it's a court of law or the court of public opinion. If a person is genuinely interested in the truth, then he/she will look first at the evidence.

The big mistake was to use the atomic bomb, seriously ? The biggest growth industry in the US at the end of the war was the production of body bags in anticipation of the invasion of the Japanese islands . Okinawa showed us the price that would be paid in US casualties. Never 2nd guess the use of nukes. It was the right call.

It was the right call.

Yep. It's always easy to second guess when it's not your rear end on the line.

Hello tom:

Well then, I feel better..

excon thank me




What a pity it is difficult to be guilty of treason these days, in earlier times it was much easier yeah these days you have to provide evidence . Maybe we should just throw Trump in a lake and see if he floats .

thank me


yeah these days you have to provide evidence . Maybe we should just throw Trump in a lake and see if he floats .

What a brilliant idea but don't throw Hilliary in, you know she would sink, right?

Just a lead to follow? No, evidence is what we look at when we are trying to establish the truth. It doesn't matter if it's a court of law or the court of public opinion. If a person is genuinely interested in the truth, then he/she will look first at the evidence.

Just a lead to follow? No, evidence is what we look at when we are trying to establish the truth. It doesn't matter if it's a court of law or the court of public opinion. If a person is genuinely interested in the truth, then he/she will look first at the evidence.

Think there is enough evidence to accuse the Saudis of murdering a journalist?

Hello:

You'd think I wouldn't have to explain what an investigation is to the law and order party.. But things is up side down.. We investigate to find the truth.. We don't have truth and then investigate.. Clearly, an investigation in progress, is an investigation that hasn't yet determined the truth..

Now, it's also true that in the course of investigating, other law breakers might turn up. Should they look the other way??


Dude!


When it's over, we'll know the truth.. That is unless Trump convinces people that the deep state Democrats, the FBI and the Justice Department are ENEMY'S.


excon

Perhaps you should explain that to all of the folks who had Kavanaugh guilty as charged when the evidence made that conclusion ridiculous.

Perhaps you should explain that to all of the folks who had Kavanaugh guilty as charged when the evidence made that conclusion ridiculous.
There was no follow-up investigation by the naysayers. "We say it didn't happen, so Kavanaugh is not guilty."

No doubt just look at previous presidents when they start, and when they leave... they all have shown considerable aging after only 4 years.


There was no follow-up investigation by the naysayers. "We say it didn't happen, so Kavanaugh is not guilty."

There is this pesky legal standard in the USA... called Innocent UNTIL proven guilty. Nobody ever HAS to prove they are innocent, but the ACCUSERS, ALWAYS have to prove you did it. They couldn't find a single witness to back up the delusional claims Ford made for pay. And there is no doubt she was paid to do it. He wasn't the first.. its been a regular Democrat Tactic for a number of elections so far. They did it to Herman Caine too. Then crawled back under their respective rocks never to be heard from again.

There is this pesky legal standard in the USA... called Innocent UNTIL proven guilty. Nobody ever HAS to prove they are innocent, but the ACCUSERS, ALWAYS have to prove you did it.
No one proved Kavanaugh guilty because there was no investigation -- nor was there time made to investigate. (I've been a Republican since I registered to vote at age 21.)

There was no follow-up investigation by the naysayers. "We say it didn't happen, so Kavanaugh is not guilty."


Precisely!! It was not a question of guilt or innocence. It was a question of a proper investigation which the Republicans sabotaged by the WH refusal to allow the FBI to do their full and complete investigation.

I'm always amazed at how the right-wing simply ignores this crucial point and blames the opposition for dishonest dealing when it is the Republicans themselves who are guilty of dishonest dealing.

The "evidence" of 40+ witnesses was not allowed to see the light of day. HEIL, boys!

The "evidence" of 40+ witnesses was not allowed to see the light of day. HEIL, boys

Forty witnesses? OK, list them. Tell us who they are, and especially note those who have anything even approaching first hand testimony of the alleged incident. (Hint, that would be zero.) Make sure you list the name of the witness who would have driven CBF home.

Time for this insanity to stop. First the liberals, in their desperate attempt to keep a Supreme Court that will subvert the democratic process by finding unlisted and unsupported "rights" in the Constitution, bring up a ridiculous charge against BK that has no supporting evidence whatsoever, and then complain when the FBI's investigation reveals zero substantiation. Dr. Ford's own witnesses did not support her. It is complete and stupid nonsense. It makes me glad beyond belief not to be a part of this political clown show. It only serves to illustrate everything that is sick and ignorant in American politics.

Here's what the three witnesses named by Dr. Ford had to say. If you have forty more like these, then we'll be able to nominate BK for saint.

(1)Simply put, “Ms. Keyser does not know Mr. Kavanaugh and she has no recollection of ever being at a party or gathering where he was present, with, or without, Dr. Ford.”


“I have no memory of this alleged incident,” said (2) Mark Judge in a September 18 letter sent to the Senate Judiciary Committee. He said he did not recall the party and never saw Brett Kavanaugh act in the matter Ford describes.


(3) Patrick J. Smyth issued a statement: “I understand that I have been identified by Dr. Christine Blasey Ford as the person she remembers as ‘PJ’ who supposedly was present at the party she described in her statements to the Washington Post. I am issuing this statement today to make it clear to all involved that I have no knowledge of the party in question; nor do I have any knowledge of the allegations of improper conduct she has leveled against Brett Kavanaugh.

Personally speaking, I have known Brett Kavanaugh since high school and I know him to be a person of great integrity, a great friend, and I have never witnessed any improper conduct by Brett Kavanaugh towards women. To safeguard my own privacy and anonymity, I respectfully request that the Committee accept this statement in response to any inquiry the Committee may have.”

Due diligence requires you take EVERYBODYS statement, and you sure left a bunch of people out. They have come forward and are public, yet have not been questioned. That sounds half a$$ed to me no matter how you cut it, but probably better for repubs to get what they want. It worked, which is typical of the whole dufus presidency and it's no wonder you have to hold your nose to vote for him and keep holding it after two years of the dufus.

Trust me my friend you are going to have one sore nose by 2020 if it's not hurting like heck now, or some really NUMB fingers frozen on your face. You probably want Mueller to go away too. Now that's what a REAL investigation looks like! Too bad all you want is the right to refuse baking a cake for gay weddings or outlaw abortions for poor women, or make the institute of marriage controlled exclusively by the clergy.

Due diligence requires you take EVERYBODYS statement, and you sure left a bunch of people out.

Name the ones that have any knowledge whatsoever of the alleged incident. Name them. List them. If they can even say, "I was across the street at the time," or "I came by and worked on the phone." Anyone at all who has any first hand knowledge of this party and has come forward in willingness to testify. Name them. Anyone! If you can't, and you can't, then why do you continue this charade? Once again, it is all a political circus, and a vain effort to maintain political control of the Supreme Court. Liberals don't care one ounce about Dr. Ford, and certainly have no interest in justice. They just want to maintain their grip on the SCOTUS. It is an embarrassment for the entire liberal community, and the real tragedy is that they have become so power hungry that they evidently can't even see it.

One thing I have noticed about some of you guys. You love generalities, but you're short on specifics. Name them! Who are the forty? Who is even one?

Perhaps you should explain that to all of the folks who had Kavanaugh guilty as charged when the evidence made that conclusion ridiculous.

Hello j:

Couple things.. Direct testimony under oath IS evidence. And, it seemed that Republicans BELIEVED her. Of course, that put the Kavanaugh appointment in jeopardy, so the talking points shifted dramatically.. I see you picked 'em up. The ONLY way the previously believable testimony can be obliterated is to demonize ALL the women who're VICTIMS and taking to the streets.. And, they did. They're called an ANGRY mob. They're accused of being PAID.. They're called TOXIC.

Trump WON.. But, at what cost? The nation is FURTHER divided.. Trump thinks that works for him. Let's hope not.

excon

Name the ones that have any knowledge whatsoever of the alleged incident. Name them. List them. If they can even say, "I was across the street at the time," or "I came by and worked on the phone." Anyone at all who has any first hand knowledge of this party and has come forward in willingness to testify. Name them. Anyone! If you can't, and you can't, then why do you continue this charade? Once again, it is all a political circus, and a vain effort to maintain political control of the Supreme Court. Liberals don't care one ounce about Dr. Ford, and certainly have no interest in justice. They just want to maintain their grip on the SCOTUS. It is an embarrassment for the entire liberal community, and the real tragedy is that they have become so power hungry that they evidently can't even see it.

One thing I have noticed about some of you guys. You love generalities, but you're short on specifics. Name them! Who are the forty? Who is even one?

There are many instances,


https://www.newstimes.com/local/article/Blumenthal-helped-Kavanaugh-classmate-send-FBI-13274370.php

Repubs deemed them not relevant.

https://www.thenewcivilrightsmovement.com/2018/09/kavanaughs-yale-classmates-have-been-emailing-for-months-asking-will-this-thing-come-out-reporter-says/

Not even a look? You can't get specifics without at least checking it out. Did repubs do that? More like sweeping anything that could be true being swept under a rug to get to a vote. That's cool, as facts may be buried but do they stay buried...time will tell.

Hello Ex,


Direct testimony under oath IS evidence. Yes, but it needs corroboration, and her testimony not only did not have any, it was contradicted by her own witnesses.


And, it seemed that Republicans BELIEVED her. It is NEVER about believing a witness. It should always be about trying to find out if his/her story is credible. It never was.


The ONLY way the previously believable testimony can be obliterated is to demonize ALL the women who're VICTIMS That is completely untrue. It is no more true to say that than to say that believing CBF is to demonize all men. I'm sorry, but that is total nonsense. This has nothing to do with any general view of men abusing women. Men do despicable things, and that is beyond question, and women sadly bear the brunt of much of it. They deserve our sympathy, our support, and justice, but that cannot translate into the erroneous idea that in order to support abused women, we have to believe EVERY story that comes out. That would result in chaos.

Still waiting to hear the names of all those witnesses who can verify Dr. Ford's story.

There are many instances,

https://www.newstimes.com/local/arti...I-13274370.php (https://www.newstimes.com/local/article/Blumenthal-helped-Kavanaugh-classmate-send-FBI-13274370.php)

Yeah. This is really powerful evidence: "I have no direct or indirect knowledge about any of the allegations against him."



https://www.thenewcivilrightsmovemen...reporter-says/ (https://www.thenewcivilrightsmovement.com/2018/09/kavanaughs-yale-classmates-have-been-emailing-for-months-asking-will-this-thing-come-out-reporter-says/)

"There'd been an email chain of Yale classmates of Kavanaugh talking about 'Will this thing come out?' long before Christine Blasey Ford came forward," Mayer added.She also reports she spoke with another woman, also a Yale classmate of Kavanaugh, who does not know, Deborah Ramirez, the accuser. This unnamed woman "remembers hearing about it that night or the next day," and told Mayer about the incident. Their stories were "identical," Mayer reports.

Yes indeed. Unnamed witness who does not know Ramierez. Alleged email chains of people talking about things. Really powerful stuff. If that was all I had, I wouldn't bother to post it. Like I said, is there anyone out there with first hand knowledge of these events? Answer: NO.

If such an email chain ever existed, don't you think it would be an easy thing to publish it?

Whatever you say. Nice repub cover up and slam job.

Names. At some point you have to have names of witnesses. It's not the republicans fault that you have none. You just don't have a case. The great likelihood is that BK is simply not guilty. You don't like that, but it is just true.

The ship has sailed and the deed is done, what more could you ask for?

GOOOO COWBOYS!!!!!!!

what more could you ask for?

Now you know how I will answer that. The "e" word!

Names. At some point you have to have names of witnesses.

Hello again, j:

You can't know the names of all the witnesses at the beginning of an investigation.. You do an investigation to reveal the names of witnesses... This investigation was NOT designed to reveal witnesses or corroboration.. It was designed to shut the libs up.

Didn't work..

excon

You can't know the names of all the witnesses at the beginning of an investigation.. You do an investigation to reveal the names of witnesses... This investigation was NOT designed to reveal witnesses or corroboration.. It was designed to shut the libs up.

As the old saying goes, "That dog just won't hunt." At some point you have to have a reason to look people up. Dr. Ford gave her testimony, and every witness the FBI interviewed either had no useful knowledge or contradicted her testimony. That was nine people. If they had interviewed fifteen, then libs would say it should have been twenty. If twenty, then it should have been thirty. The truth is, there was NO ONE LEFT to interview. No one who was supposedly at the party was left. Who were they going to talk to, the school janitor? They might as well have interviewed some of us on this board since we know about as much as these 40 so called witnesses some mentioned earlier. I guess they could have interviewed the entire population of the country, but then the libs would have asked about Mexico and Canada.

But here is a question worth pondering. If there are really 40 witnesses out there, wouldn't we have to know their names to know that there are forty of them? How could anyone have said "forty" but not know any names. ESP? A voice from the heavenlies? Angelic visitation?

Your former candidate, Hillary Clinton, today denied that Bill's relationship with Lewinsky was an abuse of power. I'm sure all the dems will call for an investigation. After all, there is actually some evidence in that case, and it is well within what is evidently the 36 year statute of limitations.

Your former candidate, Hillary Clinton, today denied that Bill's relationship with Lewinsky was an abuse of power. I'm sure all the dems will call for an investigation. After all, there is actually some evidence in that case, and it is well within what is evidently the 36 year statute of limitations.

That's a non issue that you can look up yourself and see the results. You can also review what the dufus said at the time and relate it to NOW if you wish.

https://ecp.yusercontent.com/mail?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.arcamax.com%2Fnewspics% 2F166%2F16681%2F1668107.gif&t=1539608568&ymreqid=acd6ec88-63d3-b076-1c39-6e0070012b00&sig=55oyQct4cgRX2Uz4uwz8Qw--~C (https://www.arcamax.com/chipbok/s-2134264?ezine=641)

You don't like Hillary and Bill, now what? So what? You should get over that hate Hillary syndrome, as you have had a longer time than us NEVER EVER dufus haters.

https://www.arcamax.com/newspics/166/16683/1668352.gif
Think she just got tired of the dufus and his antics?

You don't like Hillary and Bill, now what? So what? You should get over that hate Hillary syndrome, as you have had a longer time than us NEVER EVER dufus haters.

What a convenient belief for you.

As convenient as your EVIDENCE argument? You have the right though, and can hold your nose and worship whatever you choose, that delivers for you. I just think electing a lying cheating dufus to get what you want was a deal with the devil, even if you think the choices was only deals with the devil. I also think your rational for hating Hillary is based on faulty evidence and right wing loony conspiracy theories and spin right up to the phony Benghazi crap you guys cooked up.

That was investigated also, and part of a bigger story, as many civilians and patriots have lost their lives serving their country, but the right only focuses on ONE of them to smear ONE person as part of a decades old smear campaign. Yet all you are concerned about is smearing a good man by your opinion, and have no EVIDENCE that he or Mr. Judge are telling the truth, just THEIR words in a written statement. Your opinion is based on testimonials by his solicitated fan club, and frankly your obsession with the Clintons makes you just another one trick pony that doesn't even comment about repub voter suppression, dark money in politics, or the dufus strange behavior against the evidence of assassinations by Russians and Saudis on foreign soil. No mention of the many dufus sycophants who have had to resign for dastardly behavior at tax payer expense, or cannot run for reelection for dastardly deeds.

You don't want the truth just the convenience of getting what you want and we all pay the price for you getting it. So no more of your fake outrage and Clinton bashing, since that's yesterdays issues and nothing to do with CURRENT EVENTS.

COME ON HOUSTON!

As convenient as your EVIDENCE argument? You have the right though, and can hold your nose and worship whatever you choose, that delivers for you.

Evidence argument?? Good grief. You have reduced evidence to an argument, kind of like it's a philosophy with which you disagree, as opposed to being the foundation upon which our justice system is based.


I just think electing a lying cheating dufus to get what you want was a deal with the devil, even if you think the choices was only deals with the devil.

Yeah. I guess I should have voted for that fount of moral virtue, Hillary Clinton.


I also think your rational for hating Hillary is based on faulty evidence

Don't look now, but you are appealing to evidence!

I don't hate Hillary. You will note I don't call her ugly names like you do with Trump. I guess you agree with her that her husband did not abuse his presidential power when he had an affair with then 20 year old intern Monica Lewinsky.


the phony Benghazi crap you guys cooked up. Says the man who was not among those killed attempting to defend the consulate because of Clinton's inattention.

OK. This one makes me laugh. Can I have just one???

Yeah! Right, what a pity you couldn't do the same for your opponent but only he can do that

faulty evidence and right wing loony conspiracy theories and spin right up to the phony Benghazi crap you guys cooked up.

A federal judge has also bought into the "right wing loony conspiracy theories".

"In a combative exchange at a hearing Friday in Washington, D.C., a federal judge unabashedly accused career State Department officials of lying and signing "clearly false" affidavits to derail a series of lawsuits seeking information about former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton's private email server and her handling of the 2012 terrorist attack on the U.S. Consulate in Benghazi, Libya."

https://michronicleonline.com/2018/10/17/court-criticizes-state-department-for-providing-false-statements-on-clinton-emails/

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/state-department-provided-clearly-false-statements-to-derail-hillary-clinton-doc-requests-federal-judge-says

https://www.arcamax.com/newspics/166/16698/1669860.gif