Hillary's criminal indictment: before or after she takes the Oath of office as PotUS?

Office pool :

Shall Hillary Clinton find herself under formal criminal indictment before or after she's sworn in to office as the first woman president in U S history?

18 U.S. Code Chap. 19, § 371 - Conspiracy to commit offense or to defraud United States

18 U.S. Code Chap. 79 § 1505 - Obstruction of proceedings before departments, agencies, and committees

Chap. 79 § 1509 - Obstruction of court orders

Chap. 79 § 1512 - Tampering with a witness, victim, or an informant

Chap. 79 § 1519 - Destruction, alteration, or falsification of records in Federal investigations and bankruptcy

18 U.S. Code Chap. 79 § 1621 - Perjury generally

----------------Chap. 79 § 1622 - Subornation of perjury

Why this isn't going to "go away"

Exhibit "A" :

The Federalist
http://thefederalist.com/2016/10/17/the-fbis-own-investigation-summary-proves-hi...

The FBI’s Own Investigation Summary Proves Hillary Clinton Broke The Law

Reminder: Hillary is above the law.

OCTOBER 17, 2016 | By David Harsanyi

According to documents released today, Undersecretary of State Patrick Kennedy pressured a senior FBI official into unclassifying emails sent from Hillary Clinton’s illegal private server. The FBI official notes that Kennedy contacted the organization to ask for the change in classification in “exchange for a ‘quid pro quo.'”

More specifically, “State would reciprocate by allowing the FBI to place more agents in countries where they are presently forbidden,” according to a conversation relayed by The Weekly Standard‘s Stephen Hayes, who broke the story this weekend. The FBI did not take Kennedy up on his offer.

Despite initial denials from the State Department, this exchange is entirely plausible. For one, State had plenty of expertise in the deployment of quid pro quo during Hillary’s years of enriching her family foundation by trading government access. Moreover, a senior FBI official has a lot less reason to fabricate a conversation about favor trading than a Clinton functionary has to pressure a senior FBI official into saving Hillary from criminal prosecution.

“Classification is an art, not a science, and individuals with classification authority sometimes have different views,” a State Department spokesperson said today. No doubt this is true. So why did Kennedy wait until a criminal investigation was well underway to ask law enforcement to scrutinize that particular document at that particular time? Is it customary for undersecretaries of State to ask the FBI to alter the classifications of documents that just happen to protect political candidates at the center of a politically explosive investigations?

Did Kennedy — a man who owes his high position to the Clintons — engage in this conversation on his own? Was he asked to do it? For months, law enforcement had attempted to contact him, and he ignored their inquiries. Why, according to FBI documents, did Kennedy only reach out to make this request?

What’s even more curious is that FBI Director James Comey didn’t consider this event — or, for that matter, the litany of other actions Clinton’s lackeys took to protect her — as a sign that there was, at the very least, an intent to influence the investigation.

This is, of course, just the latest revelation in the Hillary email scandal. It’s worth remembering that the illegal email setup was only inadvertently discovered through a congressional investigation into Benghazi. The server itself existed to evade transparency.

Oh, boy. Quid pro quo allegation between State and FBI over classification. That is messy. pic.twitter.com/Kf5FcSFQjb
— Matt Zapotosky (@mattzap) October 17, 2016

When caught, Hillary alleged that she “never sent any classified material nor received any marked classified.” This turned out to be a lie. Hillary claimed before becoming secretary she had merely wanted only one device “for convenience.” This turned out to be lie. The FBI found that Clinton “used numerous mobile devices,” not to mention servers. Clinton — the most competent person to ever run for president, according to Barack Obama — claimed she didn’t understand how classified markings work. This was also a lie.

According to the FBI, Hillary sent 110 emails containing clearly marked classified information. Thirty-six of these emails contained secret information. Eight of those email chains contained “top secret” information.

“We assess it is possible that hostile actors gained access to Secretary Clinton’s personal e-mail account,” Comey said at his press conference in July. He acknowledged this could have happened because Hillary and her staff were “extremely careless in their handling of very sensitive, highly classified information.” He also admitted that no competent foreign power would have left behind evidence of this hack. Yet, for some reason, Comey would not admit that this is why U.S. Code makes mishandling information — not the intent of those mishandling it — illegal.

Those who ran Clinton’s server attempted to destroy evidence — government documents — after The New York Times reported on her wrongdoing. Probably another coincidence. Not that intent mattered to Comey, either.

Before the FBI even cracked open their laptops, the Justice Department proactively gave immunity to the five people who could have testified that Hillary was lying. (One of these people, Cheryl Mills, later acted as Hillary’s lawyer.) The two Clinton aides with the most intimate knowledge about her email conniving were also given side deals in which the FBI promised to destroy their laptops after reviewing them. With all this in mind, it’s fair to wonder what kind of pressure the State Department was exerting on the FBI.

It should be noted that the FBI released these summaries as part of a Freedom of Information Act request, not because of its profound respect for transparency. In a normal year, revelations of this nature would be nearly impossible to bury in the current of news. This year is different, because the vast majority of journalists (yes, a few have done great work covering this story) seem incapable of being properly outraged by both candidates.

David Harsanyi is a Senior Editor at The Federalist.

------------

Copyright © 2016 The Federalist, a wholly independent division of FDRLST Media, All Rights Reserved

Friday, 28 October 2016

FBI Director Comey informs House Republican chairman by letter that recent e-mails found during Bureau investigation of former congressman Anthony Weiner have led him to re-open the investigation of HRC's official use of an unauthorized home e-mail server.

"Democrats should ask Clinton to step aside"
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/columnists/kass/ct-hillary-clinton-emails-kas...

So did the FBI find Abedin's get out of jail insurance policy, and has that now become Comey's get out of jail insurance policy?
Posted by: stumpy | Oct 31, 2016 3:59:43 PM | 7

http://www.moonofalabama.org/2016/10/the-fbis-clinton-investigation-is-wider-tha...

#5--the fact is she should have never run for POTUS--there is just too much in the Clinton closet. She won't step down though--there's no way that's going to happen. Anyway this race should not be that close and if Trump somehow manages to pull it off it's because her and her family and all those closely connected to their nefarious business interests will have imploded and taken the entire democratic party down with them.

It's almost funny when you think about the previous investigation into her blackberry/home server and her time at State. She had to have these things even if she wasn't supposed to and these things about texts and emails just are not going to die--even if she does get elected. Hacked or not hacked the shit is there and it proves what a lot of people suspected all along and for those who think the Clinton's are not corrupt--I'm sorry but your head is in the sand. . The numbers for Sanders were always better than Clinton's head to head against Trump. Sanders background is remarkably clean for a politician in these times. He would have brought massive amounts of enthusiastic young people in to the democratic party. He would have moved the democratic party back towards the left which is where it needs to go. He would have beat Trump no problem. That's gone. Missed opportunity. Oh well---is about all I can say. For those who said that the republican party would have never worked with Sanders--how well do you think they're going to work with Clinton even from her centrist positions? I'm thinking it's going to be somewhere between not very well and not at all. What I suspect is going to happen is investigation after investigation especially if the republicans continue to control the House and Senate.

It's not going to be good if we end up with an impeachment but the potential is there.

OTOH, risks to national security, which MAY be INTENTIONAL:

1. Computer Scientists Believe A Trump Server Was Communicating With A Russian Bank
2. FBI Investigates Ex-Trump Campaign Manager’s Foreign Ties
3. FBI Head James Comey Opposed Naming Russia As An Election Meddler
4. A Veteran Spy Apparently Tried To Tip The FBI That Russia Was Cultivating Trump

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/donald-trump-russia_us_5817cb54e4b0990edc332...

ETA: We would know a lot more if Trump released his tax returns.

Things have really gotten weird. Ironic that Mrs Clinton was involved in a group to impeach Nixon. She could go down in history as worse than Nixon.

I don't know when the hammer will fall, but we all know that Bill and Hillary have been pushing their luck for a very long time. They're so good at deception. An immoral (amoral?) person might be impressed by their skill. Where's James Carville?

People keep talking about Trump being the downfall of the Republican Party. I've wondered about that myself. I haven't heard anything about how the Clintons could annihilate the Democratic Party.

>7 lriley: "It's not going to be good if we end up with an impeachment"

Good for whom? I'll be okay. So will America. Maybe it's time to flush the Clintons and their lackeys into the sewer where they belong.

You might not believe it, but in recent months I had actually considered voting for her.

>8 margd: Smacks of desperation. #4 is a classic turd of the sort I'd expect from David Corn. The others aren't much less shameless.

#8---FWIW--it would not surprise me to find out later that Mr. Trump is full in with a foreign power to subvert this election and that if elected he will face impeachment before his term is up too. He also has a criminal fraud case pending I believe. His Trump U. is a classic con man's job. There is much more dirt on him I am sure. I see him pretty much as a crook--not all that unlike a Berlusconi.

There is compelling reason I would think for most people to believe that Hillary's State dept. coordinated with the Clinton foundation very very often in various illegal activities and that she knew full well. There's also pretty good reason to believe that Huma Abedin's ex Anthony Weiner (the former NYS congressman) was at least privy to some State dept. correspondence he shouldn't have been and that quite possibly he's a pedophile.

A short clip of John Oliver on HBO the other night as a reporter broke the news to Vice President Biden in an interview--when Biden asked him for the source--the reporter tells him about the Weiner investigation. Biden say's 'Oh God!--his head drops and he covers his face with his hands.

FWIW I still think Hillary is going to win. The avenue for Trump though is if he starts turning battleground states (Ohio, Michigan, Pennsylvania, Florida)--then Hillary has a real problem.

#10--generally it's not going to be good. I will be good too. Often good comes out of bad. You just have to wait a bit. So there's that.

>12 lriley: If #4 has legs, I'll eat my shoe like Werner Herzog. Consider context, and source(s). The only element that registers as plausible is that the Russians might have kompromat on Trump. He does like them on the younger side.

They're pulling out all the propaganda stops. This is what that looks like. And I could have told you years ago that in a situation like this, you'd see Corn at the front of the bullshit brigade. If there were a real story here, they could have picked someone less predictable to break it.

#13--it's possible that the Russians and Trump have been colluding. OTOH the Clinton campaign resting on that and not doing anything near a good job of disputing the material released speaks volumes. It's obvious to me anyway that they've been caught out on the behind the scenes scheming--that a lot of illegality has taken place and their momentum because of it has stalled again. There really isn't anybody good here IMO. As both of us have been saying all along---the two major political parties have given us two horrible choices. Voting Green.

Yeah, voting Green as well. Again.

I despise the Huffington Post. It is an unreliable source. This should prove to everyone once and for all that they are biased to the left. If they would come clean about that, they might actually gain some respect. Do not read it. Do not quote from it. You only make yourself look stupid.

If you've been Keeping Up with Arianna over the years, then you know that she is an opportunistic, gold-digging, parasitical bitch. She didn't just castrate her husband. She turned him gay.

I looked at the link in 8 and found it so moronic and paranoid that I thought it was a joke. Trump in league with the Kremlin to steal the election? That's new. Historically it's been the Democrats who cozy up to Russia.

I wonder if it's a matter of Mrs Clinton and those of her generation not being savvy enough about computers to understand everything that is involved, what to do and what not to do. Security is a complicated subject. But if she is like Obama, she could have ignored her advisers and assumed that she knew best. I wonder if she had the IT guy shot.

Email just isn't a good place to pass along confidential information or much that is personal or private. I don't send email much, and when I do I try to avoid putting anything valuable into it. I'm glad I kept my landline.

Say hello to President Kaine. I know nothing about the guy.

#16---Do you have any idea how stupid and bigoted this makes you look?

>7 lriley: The numbers for Sanders were always better than Clinton's head to head against Trump. ... He would have beat Trump no problem.

The Socialist atheist? Clinton has made huge play with being a reasonable mainstream candidate. Once Republicans had started the full press against Sanders, Sanders would have been portrayed as the reincarnation of Karl Marx. As people have continuously pointed out, candidates that nobody has heard of tend to poll well, until they start taking fire from the other side.

19>No, I'm unaware of that. Maybe you could explain it to me.

21: From your other thread about Tim Kaine, where you "describe" his wife:

She was a first-year Harvard law student, looking for a rich husband so she could drop out of school and have babies, because she knew babies must have more sense than anyone at Harvard Law School.

Or she might have graduated, passed the bar, served as a lawyer, judge, and the Secretary of Education for Virginia.

Its bullshit like your description of Anne Horton that reveals your misogyny.

What I wrote is like a Saturday Night Live sketch. Satire. Making a sarcastic joke about one woman is not identical with hating the entire female gender.

So many people have a problem understanding that because, I suspect, they don't want to understand. It's more ego-gratifying to "take a stand" for a vague abstration, women in general. For women. Against women. Bull. That's not reality. I'm interested in how people treat each other one on one. On that playing field, I've won many tmes over.

>16 barney67: "She didn't just castrate her husband. She turned him gay."

Uh, no. That's not how these things work.

After another release of documents, FBI finds itself caught in a partisan fray

The surprise tweet from a little-used FBI account came about 1 p.m. Tuesday, announcing that the agency had published on its website 129 pages of internal documents related to a years-old investigation into former president Bill Clinton’s pardon of a fugitive Democratic donor.

The seemingly random reminder of one of the darkest chapters of the Clinton presidency a week before the election drew an immediate rebuke from Hillary Clinton’s campaign — with its spokesman tweeting that the FBI’s move was “odd” and asking whether the agency planned to publish unflattering records about Republican candidate Donald Trump.

“Will FBI be posting docs on Trump’s housing discrimination in ’70s?” asked Brian Fallon.

For the second time in five days, the FBI had moved exactly to the place the nation’s chief law enforcement agency usually strives to avoid: smack in the middle of partisan fighting over a national election, just days before the vote...

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/after-release-of-documents-fbi-finds-its...

#24--don't tell him that. He knows. It's a fact that Arianna Huffington can turn someone--anyone?--gay. To my eyes that's just blatantly stupid--but what do I know? And the thing is what's wrong with being gay if that's what you are? It would seem to me reading his remarks, that for him there is a stigma attached to being 'gay'. Maybe he'd like a chance to clear that up?

.....and then nobody understands his humor. Okay. He's just misunderstood in general.

>20 prosfilaes:

"Sanders would have been portrayed as the reincarnation of Karl Marx."

And there are none so politically stupid as the US-of-A-Americans who could be sold such a load of utter bullshit. Only Americans, only in America.

Some stuff you might read--if you know how to read--and think about-- if you know how to think. But I ain't holding my breath.

(The New York Post)

Opinion |

Dems should blame Hillary, not Comey, for the ‘October surprise’

By Rich Lowry

October 31, 2016 | 8:27pm | Updated

Before Democrats burn James Comey in effigy, they should think about how the FBI director came to have an outsized influence in the election in the first place.

It’s not something Comey sought or welcomed. A law enforcement official who prizes his reputation, he didn’t relish becoming a hate figure for half the country or more. No, the only reason that Comey figures in the election at all is that Democrats knowingly nominated someone under FBI investigation.¹

Once upon a time — namely any presidential election prior to this one — this enormous political and legal vulnerability would have disqualified a candidate. Not this year, and not in the case of Hillary Clinton.

The country has clearly lowered its standards in this election, and Donald Trump’s madcap candidacy provides evidence of that almost every day. But Hillary’s nomination was itself an offense against American political norms and an incredibly reckless act.

And the Democrats were supposed to be the party acting rationally.

Clinton effectively locked up the nomination in June and wasn’t cleared of criminal wrongdoing by the FBI until July. What if she had been indicted? Would Democrats have run her anyway? Would they have substituted in a 74-year-old socialist who had lost the nomination battle, or someone else who hadn’t even run? Any of these circumstances would have been unprecedented, but Democrats risked it.

They did it, in part, because they could never bring themselves to fully acknowledge the seriousness of the email scandal and, relatedly, the ethical miasma around the Clinton Foundation. They considered it all another desperate trick of the Vast Right-Wing Conspiracy. ²

Clinton henchman David Brock demanded that the New York Times retract its initial report of Clinton’s exclusive use of a private email account in March 2015. A parade of Democratic operatives pooh-poohed the whole thing, from Clinton spokesman Karen Finney (“a politically motivated series of attacks”) to James Carville (“not going to amount to a hill of beans”) to Howard Dean (“hooey”).

When they first got on a debate stage together last October, Bernie Sanders, the only man who had a chance to stop Clinton, pleased the crowd with a ringing denunciation of interest in her emails.³

Democrats bought the just-so stories offered up by the Clinton campaign. The FBI investigation was just a “security review.” The FBI wasn’t investigating Hillary, but only her server. Anything to deflect from the seriousness of the matter.

While Democrats willfully looked the other way, they put Comey in an impossible position. An indictment would change the course of American history. That was all on him. He ultimately blinked. But he also put on the record the recklessness of Clinton’s practices as secretary of state in an attempt to create public accountability.

Comey’s conduct is open to criticism, but there’s no way to please everyone when handling a case with such high political stakes.

His notification to Congress last weekend is another case in point. All that can be said is that if Democrats didn’t want the FBI to have any part in the election, they could’ve considered that before nominating Clinton.

Trump may be a deeply flawed candidate, but he caught a wave of popular fervor; Hillary, with her astonishing vulnerabilities, is a production of the Democratic elites who did everything to get her over the finish line.

Just how vulnerable is she? If it weren’t for the new trove of Huma Abedin emails, the blockbuster news this week would come via a Wall Street Journal report that the FBI is investigating the Clinton Foundation — although Fox News reported the same thing at the beginning of the year, and Hillary, of course, dismissed it as an “unsourced and irresponsible claim that has no basis.”

The email scandal and Clinton Foundation will dog Hillary until Election Day and, should she win, into her presidency. For this, she has no one to blame but herself — and her irresponsible enablers.

http://nypost.com/2016/10/31/dems-should-blame-hillary-not-comey-for-the-october...

-----------------------
(Emphasis added)

¹ : I understand his point here but I don't agree that Director Comey should be largely spared blame for his interventions--two major interventions and counting... The F.B.I. has investigatory procedures and they're there for a purpose. Director Comey violated numerous of them--very seriously--and he had no good reasons for doing so. In the case of the second announcement, he was flatly wrong in doing what amounted to second-guessing. The F.B.I. should not engage in second-guessing. The time to announce the discovery of evidence is after the decisions have been made at the Justice Dept. to bring charges. The F.B.I. does not take such decisions.

² : Stupendously bad judgement. And these people not only want your vote, not only want you to trust them to run the nation's political affairs, they dare shame you if you should be so bold as to even dream of not automatically turning your votes over to them.

³: SHows that Senator Sanders, too, can demonstrate stunningly poor judgement--not his first, worst or only example in this sorry spectacle.

---------------------------

Also, from The New Yorker
The Quiet Ruthlessness of the Clinton Campaign

By Nicholas Lemann , November 1, 2016

http://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/the-quiet-ruthlessness-of-the-clinton-ca...

------------------------------------------

Sanders is not Karl Marx reincarnated. I'm sorry but that's really dumb too.

>29 lriley: Well, I'm glad the Republican Party would never engage in any really dumb arguments. The facts of the matter doesn't matter; once Sanders was under the fire of the Republican Party, he would have been turned into the boogeyman of enough Americans that Trump would have won relatively easily.

#30--like Hillary isn't sighted in their gun barrels either?

>31 lriley: Sure, but that started long before the election, and those numbers were figured into her odds versus Trump already. Sanders hadn't been sighted, so those attacks weren't figured into his odds versus Trump.

#32--so basically you're saying Republicans would make Sanders out to be the reincarnation of Karl Marx but Hillary is going to be their Antichrist and that's better?

News for you--Hillary gets elected and the Republicans return with the House and/or the Senate then at least half of the House/Senate committees for the next term are going to have numerous investigations into the various and sundry emails, the Clinton foundation, what she was up to at the State Dept. etc. etc. etc. You're silly if you think they're going to work with her. She's going to have to work with them to get anything done at all and whatever that is it will be grudgingly. Her chances of getting better results from the GOP than Sanders on stuff that might actually benefit the population instead of the corporations is microscopic.

>33 lriley: Basically I'm saying that a large part of the population who see Clinton versus Trump as a choice between unpalatable and insane, would see Sanders versus Trump as a choice between Communism and Capitalism.

#34--I'm not disagreeing altogether but then what you're saying pretty much is that a good portion of the electorate is a lot more ignorant than they should be. Sanders pretty much is a New Deal FDR era like pol transported 70+ years into the future and now called a leftist. He's hardly a communist--though maybe to Barney.

But apart from all that still any attempt to infer that the Republicans would have been mean to Sanders as if they wouldn't be mean to Hillary Clinton is ridiculous. They were always going to use whatever means available to run down and undermine whoever came out of the Democratic primaries/caucuses. That doesn't change whether it was Sanders, Clinton, O'Malley or Biden.

But apart from all that still any attempt to infer that the Republicans would have been mean to Sanders as if they wouldn't be mean to Hillary Clinton is ridiculous.

No one is saying that. What people are saying is that your pretense that Sanders would have fared better against Trump in the general election than Clinton has is simply not a supportable claim. Sanders would have been savaged by attacks from the right and any claim that he would have done better in the election is simply wishful thinking.

#36---the poll numbers for Sanders against Trump were almost always better and quite often significantly better throughout the primary season than Clinton's numbers vs. Trump. Clinton's poll numbers have taken a beating since--particularly after all these wikileak's dumps--which I'm sorry to break to you is pretty much self inflicted stuff--and the collusion between her State department and the Clinton foundation just for one thing shouldn't surprise anyone unless they're absolutely gormless. So unless you think that wikileaks would have had a similar amount of shit--or even more shit on Sanders past (which IMO stretches all credibility) it's not unsupportable either.

the poll numbers for Sanders against Trump were almost always better and quite often significantly better throughout the primary season than Clinton's numbers vs. Trump.

And, as people have pointed out, this is because Sanders was a more unknown quantity, whereas the Republican attacks against Clinton were already in full swing. Sanders would have been savaged had he become the nominee, and his numbers would have dropped as soon as he hit the campaign trail. Pretending that he would have done better is simply engaging in wishful thinking, but that seems to be your stock in trade.

Claiming Sanders would have done better than Clinton against Trump based on pre-nomination polling is the equivalent of taking seriously the polls that come out early in every election cycle pitting a potential candidate against a "generic opponent". Those polls are never even remotely accurate. You've burrowed into a comfortable fantasy and really are spouting nothing but nonsense at this point.

collusion between her State department and the Clinton foundation just for one thing shouldn't surprise anyone unless they're absolutely gormless.

A claim of "collusion" that isn't supported by anything other than innuendo and conjecture. Until people claiming this alleged collusion provide actual evidence, the ones who are gormless are the ones purloining nothing but rumor. I've seen so many claims that there was collusion, and none of them hold up to even the slightest amount of scrutiny.

>37 lriley:

Exactly. Sanders nearly beat Clinton--who "won" only because she had so many people with their thumbs on the scales.

So, yes, using lot's of creating, she pushed Sanders out. She could cheat --and almost certainly is cheating against Trump, too. -- (why exactly would she balk at cheating against Trump?)

But JRiley's points are correct: Sanders won 23 primaries against Clinton--with all the advantages she enjoyed.

There is zero good reason to think Sanders should not have been much more effective against Trump than are the nearly-indicted Hillary and Bill Clinton.

By the way: some or, indeed all, of the wildly ill-considered immunity deals offered and taken by now infamous witnesses in the e-mail server scandal could be revoked due to either breaches of their terms and conditions or to new evidence coming to light which, again, their terms make valid grounds for revocation.

>38 StormRaven: : " Sanders would have been savaged had he become the nominee, and his numbers would have dropped as soon as he hit the campaign trail. Pretending that he would have done better is simply engaging in wishful thinking, but that seems to be your stock in trade."

Let's see-- Trump's going to "savage" the guy from whom he borrowed several talking points. Sure. And what should he have nicknamed Sanders? "Crooked" Bernie? "Lyin'" Bernie? "Mean Old Man Never-Grabbed-a-Woman-by-Her-Pussy" Bernie?

Suppose Trump carries Vermont and Sanders runs again there and is re-elected? Would you dye your hair orange in that case and post a photo of it at this site?

Let's see-- Trump's going to "savage" the guy from whom he borrowed several talking points. Sure. And what should he have nicknamed Sanders?

"Socialist Bernie". "Bolshivek Bernie". "Communist Bernie". This isn't hard to figure out.

Suppose Trump carries Vermont and Sanders runs again there and is re-elected?

Trump has almost no chance of carrying Vermont, but do continue living in a fantasy world.

Also, there is no chance Clinton will be indicted, and there never has been. The claims that an indictment was imminent, and even anything resembling a realistic possibility have all been baseless conspiracy theory bullshit from the start.

I await the impeachment. A vote for Mrs Clinton is a vote for impeachment.

Hello, President Kaine. Better than Trump.

>41 barney67: "Hello, President Kaine. Better than Trump."

I'm with you on this one, Barney.

If she is elected, does anyone believe that there will be enough political will, in any quarter, to actually impeach? Sure, a handful of Republicans will make noise about it, but enough to get it off the ground?

Depends on how much dirt she has on Republicans. Just like President Clinton neutered Newt Gingrich with information about his cheating on his wife. Newt's been Bill's bitch ever since.

I await the impeachment. A vote for Mrs Clinton is a vote for impeachment.

Not a chance. Some of the Tea Party affiliated representatives will make noises about it, but the idea will get as much traction as the calls to impeach Obama got.

No one has indicted her yet so I think this impeachment gig is just wishful thinking on the part of people who don't like her politics. One does need data to impeach someone. I know that is discouraging.

>46 krazy4katz: "One does need data to impeach someone."

Would that it were.

This and Trump just shows how bad your politics has become Dodgy Vs Dodgier, Liar vs Liar, Megalomaniac vs Bigger Megalomaniac etc. SAD!