When The Democrats Do It, That Means That It’s Not Illegal

Pay to PlayJudicial Watch, a conservative watchdog group, released 296 pages of emails from the Democratic presidential nominee, including 44 that Judicial Watch says were not previously handed over to the State Department by Clinton. The emails, many of which are heavily redacted, raise questions about the Clinton Foundation’s influence on the State Department and its relations during her tenure.

7 Replies to “When The Democrats Do It, That Means That It’s Not Illegal”

  1. Doesn’t seem to matter how much evidance crops up about Hildabeast, the Main Streem media
    is going to cover for her to the grave.
    I wonder how many more poor souls will get suicided this election season?

  2. Old news. Everybody knows Hillary an incompetent, lying, scheming criminal. That’s why she’s qualified to be president, because the NYT thinks so with their biases confirming their biases.
    Move along. The best the Democrats can do is the best the citizenry can do. Well not really, but close enough for the mediocracy.
    Huma Abedin simultaneously worked for the State Dept, Hillary personally and the Clinton Foundation, so that obviously means no conflict of interest in Hillaryland.

  3. We seem to think the reason the Clintons have never been brought to justice is due to the political bias of the media. That indeed is quite despicable. However, the greater crime is the refusal of the DOJ, FBI, congress or any other law enforcement agency to bring them to account. That’s what separates a banana republic from a free and law abiding society.

  4. “raise questions about the Clinton Foundation’s influence on the State Department”
    Given that Hillary was the Secretary of State I would hope that Hillary’s influence was formidable.
    That said, the real question is did she do the work of a public servant or did she corrupt the Government Secretariat to use the power of the State Department to enrich herself and do her bidding with no regard for the interest of Americans or the American Republic to who she owed fealty and loyal service?

  5. Given the open contempt for the citizens of the Republic and the blatant corruption by this woman and those who surround her, why on earth should any taxpayer be expected to tolerate those who continue to defend the indefensible?
    Why should we be expected to “treat with respect’ those who proclaim their support and determination to elect this criminal President?

Navigation