hahaha I love your play on words. Excellent. lol
But I bet the excellence depends on whose ox is being gored.
Everyone with sense knew they were weasels, even their supporters, probably why they're so quick to minimize the dirty deeds... Or deflect.
No, but Bill was ex-president and Hillary was secy of state when the payments and "contributions" were made.
Don't give us the "old news" dodge, Vic.
The truth of the matter is, you don't give a damn about our political leaders being crooks, as long as you perceive them to be your crooks, rather than their crooks.
The truth of the matter is, you want our political leaders punished for their 'sins', as long as you perceive them as being 'the other side'.
If they are on 'your side' well then .
Ooh... still smarting, are we, Vic?
The truth of the matter is that I didn't vote for either of them; the choice was a disgrace, so I left the presidential line blank (the 3rd and 4th party candidates were total flakes).
As for punishment, let the chips fall where they may, as long as the game isn't rigged. (Hah... ask Comey or Bernie about that.)
No idea what you are talking about now.
I made a joke about Trump's lawyer and you attacked the Clintons. Sound like you are the one who is butt-hurt, not me.
No idea, eh? You're weaseling again, Vic, as usual.
You assuredly did NOT merely make a joke about Trump's lawyer; you were implying a Russia/Putin connection as well.
And when I used the very same puns to point out a (so far) much more substantial Russia connection involving the Clintons, you tried to play the tired "old news" card, which would fool no one except perhaps other True Believers who, like you, have no problem with crookedness for the advancement of progressivism, your maniacal emojis notwithstanding.
Once again, the old liberal claque
Tried to cover old Hillary's back.
You'd think such lies mus' vex
Those usual suspec's,
But no, they're a Party Line pack.
You are right.
This is pretty funny.
Gee, Vic, you deleted your weaseling.
Will wonders never cease?
I weaseled. Nothing new.
No one will miss it and your poem deserves the spotlight anyways. Sorry I digressed.
It's ok, and thank you for your kind words.
Amen Fork! Crooks and weasels describes both of them.
Heck, Hannity claims he forgot Cohen was his lawyer. There is no bottom to how low some people will go.
Low he may be, but I don't think he's quite reached the stage where the Russians will pay him $500,000 for a 1-hour speech.
Oh, wait... Hannity isn't an ex-president with a secy of state wife. (Save your breath, Vic; join the crickets.)
If Hannity viewers are comfortable with his failure to disclose a conflict of interest - one in which did not reveal his personal stake while aggressively defending a lawyer, well more power to them. To me it's willful ignorance.
Former Presidents make all sorts of money for giving speeches.
Since 2009, POLITICO has found, Bush has given at least 200 paid speeches and probably many more, typically pocketing $100,000 to $175,000 per appearance. The part-time work, which rarely requires more than an hour on stage, has earned him tens of millions of dollars.
You can't be serious.
Point 1. In my first breath, I said Hannity was low, so why go on and on about why someone shouldn't feel comfortable about his conflict of interest?
Point 2. Yes, Bush has made millions giving speeches, but the total pales by comparison with what Bill has made, both in total and in the amount per speech. Bush's 200 speeches at, say, an average of $150,000 each amounts to a total of about $30 million. Bill, by comparison, was paid over $100 million.
Furthermore, to whom were the speeches made? According to your Politico source, Bush talked to groups like the Bowling Proprietors’ Association of America or the National Grocers Association, while Bill was speaking before Russian and Canadian investors with a stake in the nuclear deal, while his wife was Secretary of State, no less. Bush's wife, I remind you, was NOT secy of state.
And since you seem to like Politico as a source, here is what they found out about Bill's sudden increase in fees when his wife was secy of state:
ABC came to the same conclusion:
And that mouthpiece for right-wing propaganda, the NY Times, also found much to question about the money the Clintons took in, both directly and in "donations" to the Clinton Foundation during Hillary's tenure at State. I thought you might be interested, since you voiced such concern above about Hannity's conflicts of interest.
You did call Hannity low. I interpreted your "but he's not quite reached the stage.." comment as meant to mitigate his character flaws. Sorry if I misunderstood.
Oh, no problem. My point was just that the degrees of the conflicts of interest are in no way comparable, although of course I have no way of knowing what Hannity would have done, had he had the Clinton's opportunities.