One of the many scandals Clintons should be in Jail for

Post Reply New Topic

Who will they give pardon's too in the future if they get back in the White House?

http://nypost.com/2016/01/17/after-pard ... f-friends/

You may have missed this article from the same tabloid newspaper source:
http://nypost.com/2016/07/19/trump-said ... sador-job/

Tabloids = beat ups and sensationalism. Broadsheets tend to be a more reliable source, IMO.

They are both pretty awful.

As an aside nothing annoys people who take the civil service exams and work their way other the foreign office/state dept more than political appointees. They have to be nannied, becuase they have no clue about the job.

The Clintons also appointed a backer the ambassadorship of Jamaica, when why dad was posted there in the 90s. That guy was inept and cause a mini scandal when he suggest Jamaica fund its education programs through gambling. Jamaica is actually pretty social Conservative (contrary to what people may think).

There is nothing unusual about political appointees, in the US though. Been goign on for years. Even Sherly Temple was one, though by the sounds of it more competent than average.

Real diplomats have to be politically neutral in their role becuase their career spans multiple governments.

In some depts there are culls, but this is normally to do the the political advisors. However very few of them are actual civil servants anymore. More brought in special advisors.

Bush junior send one down here to be the American ambassador to New Zealand during his term. The poor guy had no diplomatic experience whatsoever, no political nor policy experience, no relevant experience at all, and became a laughing stock. He seemed a pleasant person totally out of his depth, and the appointment reflected badly on Bush.

It was clearly a "jobs for the good old boys" situation, an appointment that relied on personal favouritism of some kind. A very poor look. There were quite a lot of anti-American letters to the editor written about it here, at the time (in respected broadsheets).

Obama made an appropriate appointment though. We like his choice.

It is very common in the US. It is less common in the UK, but it does happen. Usually they have a some relevant experience or transferable skills. Still not great.

Even if a Rupert-Murdoch-owned-and-operated tabloid published an article claiming to have spoken with eye witnesses who attended a satanic black mass where Trump was said to dress up as a goat and make human sacrifices, I wouldn't give it any credibility.

Two questions for the OP.

1) Why should Hillary Clinton be in jail for something her husband did?

2) Why should Bill Clinton be in jail for issuing a Presidential pardon, a legal action he was entitled to take?

The suggestion that "the Clintons" should be jailed for this only makes sense if you have no regard for the law.

Hillary Clinton has not committed any crimes.

What you are listing is bogus. Bill Clinton pardoned people in his final days in office, as is traditional for Presidents of the United States. Pardoning Marc Rich was sleazy and he should not have done it, as he has admitted, but it was not criminal.

If you want to believe that Hillary is personally responsible for the deaths of 500,000 children in Iraq, this is a sign that you are not interested in facts. That there was in increase in child mortality as a result of the wars and sanctions in Iraq is not in dispute, but the magnitude of that consequence certainly is. But what's a few hundred thousand Iraqi children when the point is that Hillary was personally responsible for all of George W. Bush's foreign policy and the votes of all the Senators and Representatives who went along with the Bush administration's push to invade Iraq.

Her emails have already been investigated, Benghazi was investigated, there are no crimes connected with the Clinton Foundation.

It's all bogus. You can name a single criminal act by Hillary Clinton that isn't trumped up bulldung. Just because right wing nutters keep shouting this rubbish at each other on talk radio and the internet it doesn't magically become true. If there was a shred of truth to any of it, you can be sure she would already have been prosecuted.