Just as McCarthy's was free speech. It's free speech to say, "have you no shame?" I know you don't. I know the media doesn't either. There is hope that one honorable reporter will ask the question, "have you no shame?" So what are you going to do when this turns into one big nothing burger? Eat crow.
No, I'm going to say the wheels of justice have worked as they should. Either way. There is definitely reason to investigate. A bunch of Trump people did have contact with Russians. Russians did try to hack the election. Whether there was any wrongdoing on the part of any Americans we don't know. Maybe there was, maybe not. I'm willing to wait to find out. And as far as no shame, you are once again throwing stones from your glass house, given your rush to judgement on Hillary. She's still DEFINITELY guilty of multiple crimes, right? And you know this because... well, because you are a McCarthyite. Lock her up! Lock her up! barfo
The Trump apologists who find his consistent, almost predictable boorishness and lack of honesty acceptable are the ones who have no shame. And since no proof has been presented that Hillary Clinton broke any laws or did anything illegal, has that given you pause to eat crow??? Fuck no. You're utterly fixated, yet have the major balls to call out those of us who refuse to let Trump's bullshit ride......typical right wing hypocrisy.....history will prove who ends up spitting feathers. And I certainly don't expect it to be those who fought against him. And let's face it, if there is one absolute truth, it is that Donny Trump has absolutely no shame whatsoever. So don't expect those of us who oppose him to have any.
She admitted to having the illegal email server and storing government records in a non-approved place.
Which is SO MUCH WORSE than giving Israeli intelligence straight to the Russians. Or using a totally unsecured phone. Or having world leaders call you directly. Or having ridiculously poor wi-fi security (or any kind of security) at "the winter White House"
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/trum...sident-fire-special-counsel/story?id=47960860 A member of President Trump's personal legal team said he is "not going to speculate" on whether the president may order the firing of the special counsel investigating Russia's meddling in the 2016 election and its possible ties to Trump associates. But lawyer Jay Sekulow added that he "can't imagine the issue is going to arise.”
White House: When Trump Said He’d Testify, He Didn’t Mean He Would Actually Testify. http://www.thedailybeast.com/white-...t-mean-to-congress?via=desktop&source=copyurl
http://www.newsbusters.org/blogs/nb...nd-nbc-cnn-obama-gave-classified-intel-russia Back in the summer of 2016, the Obama administration provided some information to the Russians about some of the things happening on the ground. Guess what happened? The Russians then attacked some of those sites of our allies, our proxies that we were working with. And that’s a problem.
I asked for an honorable person, and here he is. Mark Penn was pollster and adviser for President Clinton from 1995 to 2000 and for Hillary Clinton from 2000 to 2008. http://thehill.com/blogs/pundits-bl...-dont-repeat-the-mistakes-of-clinton-and-1998 I have seen this movie before, up close. And I for one am hoping the sequel turns out differently and that some of the actors in this play — especially the special counsel and the Democrats — will rise above their expected roles so we can go back to accepting the finality of elections and battling on the issues instead of relying on the politics of personal destruction. I battled it in 1998 when the Republicans went down this path and I look at what’s happening today, and I say that as a country, we can do better this time.
