- Joined
- Jun 28, 2006
- Messages
- 3,609
- Reaction score
- 1,100
- Location
- Oaxaca, Mexico
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Conservative
It's about time. If we hold all elected politicians to the standard the government maintained in this case, nearly all of them would be in prison and the few remaining would be decried as ineffective. However, for those who believe the government standard in this case is reasonable, then let's apply it to Hillary Clinton and see what shakes out.
Wouldn't it be great if we could nail McAuliffe?
Roberts added: “There is no doubt that this case is distasteful; it may be worse than that. But our concern is not with tawdry tales of Ferraris, Rolexes, and ball gowns. It is instead with the broader legal implications of the government’s boundless interpretation of the federal bribery statute.”
Chief Justice Roberts did not have kind words for the ex Governor
https://www.washingtonpost.com/poli...id=hp_hp-cards_hp-card-politics:homepage/card
IMHO the Gov is a crook. Legally it appears not so.That's the issue in a nutshell. It isn't that any of these guys are pure as the driven snow. They aren't. Not a saint in the whole bunch. But the non saints are as entitled to honest and competent interpretation of our laws as are the saints. I am impressed that the SCOTUS decision was unanimous. That doesn't happen much these days and suggests that all are conscious of and oppose a double standard being applied depending on who a person is.
As I recall, President Clinton's wife, Hillary, was accepting money hand over fist from Denise Rich, Marc Rich's ex-wife at the same time President Clinton was granting Marc Ruch an unprecedented presidential pardon.
"Clinton's critics alleged that Rich's pardon had been bought, as Denise Rich had given more than $1 million[25] to Clinton's political party (the Democratic Party), including more than $100,000 to the Senate campaign of the president's wife, Hillary Rodham Clinton, and $450,000 to the Clinton Library foundation during Clinton's time in office.[21]"
http://www.debatepolitics.com/break...40-ex-gov-mcconnells-conviction-reversed.html
I wonder why the feds didn't prosecute the two of them? Perhaps the federal prosecutors go on a curve and the curve for Democrats is a lot lower than for Republicans.
It was essentially a political move to deliver VA to Hillary, with McAuliffe pulling the strings for her. It takes McDonnell out of any future political considerations as well. I don't agree with what McDonnell did, but if we're going to have a standard, it should be the standard for everyone.
And the prosecution of Sen. Stevens, Alaska, was a political move to get him out of the Senate for the Obamacare vote. The leftist Democrats have politicized every aspect of the federal government. That's why the Department of Education is being armed.
This has been the way forward for the left for years now. But, the Dept. of Ed is being armed?
Apparently.
Why does Department of Education need 12-gauge shotguns? | Examiner.com
Dept. of Education Builds Up Massive Arsenal Of Firearms » Alex Jones' Infowars: There's a war on for your mind!
Why did the USDA buy submachine guns? - CNNPolitics.com
SWAT Team Mania: The War Against the American Citizen
Thanks. I'll read some of that. I know of some school boards who'd probably like to be armed and a whole bunch of administrators who aren't competent enough to be armed.
Ethics laws and how they apply to government officials should be established by a group of ordinary citizens and voted on by the public.
OMG, I just realized what I wrote. :lamo
This isn't about schools having armed police officers, School Resource Officers, or some staff members armed. That is a decision that is so far up to local school boards. My comment was about a Washington DC bureaucracy, the Department of Education, buying guns. That's like, at a city level, arming the people in the public relations department or the community development department.
Why would the Department of Education bureaucrats need guns? Why would the Department of Agriculture need guns? Couldn't one department, like the FBI, have SWAT teams that could be loaned out to the Department of Education if a school isn't complying with Michelle Obama's lunch program?
Let me tell you that the ethics rules for common federal employees is quite clear and strict, and not lax like those for the upper echelon of elected officials.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?