Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

loyalsister

(13,390 posts)
50. Why then, does Bill Clinton no longer have a license to practice law?
Sun Jun 5, 2016, 11:46 AM
Jun 2016

It's because he broke the law and got caught. Was it just the republican's good fortune that he happened to be president at the time? He was just arrogant enough to do it even when they were trying to dig up anything to nail him. It was not impeachment worthy, but he really did do what he was accused of.

Why is it so difficult to believe that Hillary is equally arrogant? She had do have some inkling that there was a possibility that she would run for president, yet did not follow the rules to the letter while in a position where she routinely dealt with sensitive and classified information.

They are both showing a pattern of arrogance that suggests that they are above the law. The most disturbing thing about it is that it somehow has promoted loyalty based on hatred for the RW. Thus, the talking point that this is a RW witch hunt when it is a non partisan law enforcement body following up on a report generated by an IG from a Democratic administration. Over the past 20+ years, they have created a political paradigm. Convince a people that they are victims and they will be more loyal and even see them as triumphant if they escape consequences. These are problems they invited and use to create some of the most warped loyalty we have ever seen.
We did see it during the Bush administration when loyalists defended the leak of Valerie Plame's information.

Let's see if Hillary makes it to the convention without being charged.... Segami Jun 2016 #1
She could have just chose to stand down and NOT run nc4bo Jun 2016 #4
greedy narcissism is not simple. restorefreedom Jun 2016 #71
Don't be to harsh Skink Jun 2016 #9
Ignoring the law isn't a 'mistake'. HooptieWagon Jun 2016 #33
Let's Get This Over With One Way Or The Other! CorporatistNation Jun 2016 #43
Even if Bernie goes away, This will not. John Poet Jun 2016 #69
I think they'll carry her to the convention magical thyme Jun 2016 #82
I predict eight years form now. RandySF Jun 2016 #2
Sure, we still talk about Watergate too. n/t dragonfly301 Jun 2016 #31
June 14th trumad Jun 2016 #3
You'll be leaving? 99Forever Jun 2016 #37
Anybody who posts garbage like this topic will be leaving. Lord Magus Jun 2016 #46
You be sure and tell Skinner... 99Forever Jun 2016 #48
This isn't RW garbage pinebox Jun 2016 #59
Yes it is RW garbage. The OP's link cited Breitbart, enough said Lord Magus Jun 2016 #60
I just read it here is all pinebox Jun 2016 #61
No...but right wing trolls will be gone. trumad Jun 2016 #62
I didn't know any such "right wing trolls" were allowed now. 99Forever Jun 2016 #63
LOL trumad Jun 2016 #64
So you've got nothing. 99Forever Jun 2016 #65
Tell you what trumad Jun 2016 #66
You won't tell me anything. 99Forever Jun 2016 #67
OK---so let's get this straight--- trumad Jun 2016 #70
And yet you still aren't talking about anything of substance related to the article. think Jun 2016 #72
Substance? trumad Jun 2016 #75
Ya, Hillary breaking rules that may have lead to intel names being compromised is Hillarious! think Jun 2016 #85
So you still have nothing. 99Forever Jun 2016 #74
And what do you have? trumad Jun 2016 #76
I have the courage of my convictions. 99Forever Jun 2016 #80
And there it lies.... trumad Jun 2016 #83
Then we should be back to the 15 hrc supporters.we.started with soon. SwampG8r Jun 2016 #79
Do you think that intel officials were named in the Hillary emails? think Jun 2016 #41
Another lame post from the Hillarian crowd.... Segami Jun 2016 #73
A lot of the redactions cite b(3) both in the email addresses and Press Virginia Jun 2016 #5
And the Plame case went where...? Jitter65 Jun 2016 #6
Actual operations don't need to be compromised for someone to be charged Press Virginia Jun 2016 #8
Considering anything that would possibly prove that would be either redacted or withheld. NWCorona Jun 2016 #10
"...The State Department produced a document.. Segami Jun 2016 #20
Yup I'm familiar with those codes. It's not looking to good for Hillary. NWCorona Jun 2016 #21
A pity Skinner didn't implement the ban on right-wing sources effective immediately. Lord Magus Jun 2016 #44
This is just getting so sad now. hrmjustin Jun 2016 #7
It really is. kayakjohnny Jun 2016 #15
You must be awfully young and have a short frame of reference leveymg Jun 2016 #16
Your condescension is noted! hrmjustin Jun 2016 #19
What is "this is getting so sad now" if not condescension? leveymg Jun 2016 #22
Oh I comprehend! I comprehend plenty going on in this moment. hrmjustin Jun 2016 #23
So explain to us how she is going to be exonerated? leveymg Jun 2016 #25
No I don't worry about it. hrmjustin Jun 2016 #28
Only the FBI knows where this is going emulatorloo Jun 2016 #29
.. And (at least) the NSA... n/t Ghost Dog Jun 2016 #32
I don't think they're leaking either? emulatorloo Jun 2016 #51
The Inquisitr is not credible WhiteTara Jun 2016 #56
Very sleazy source; ProgressiveEconomist Jun 2016 #11
why not throw in Julius and Ethel Rosenberg Protalker Jun 2016 #12
I'm posting pointless OPs at DU! onehandle Jun 2016 #13
No, I'm posting pointless OPs at DU! onehandle Jun 2016 #14
Grow up and stop your immature, meaningless double posts. Segami Jun 2016 #17
Post removed Post removed Jun 2016 #18
how kind of you to kick it, then! nt grasswire Jun 2016 #27
Yes, we've all seen your Apple OPs. DesMoinesDem Jun 2016 #39
It is interesting that State is worried about sharing information jwirr Jun 2016 #24
The president has automatic clearance for everything by virtue of being the president. Lord Magus Jun 2016 #45
Personally I think this election shows us exactly how insecure jwirr Jun 2016 #58
there is plenty else to indict her for, as well. nt grasswire Jun 2016 #26
Okay, so I haven't been to law school - but I've watched lawyers on TV dflprincess Jun 2016 #30
Generally, article writers aren't attorneys. HooptieWagon Jun 2016 #34
While it's my opinion that "Brietbart News" is an oxymoron, it's also my opinion .... Scuba Jun 2016 #35
When you watch Gilligan's Island do you think that this mythology Jun 2016 #36
I like logic justiceischeap Jun 2016 #38
Either it's black or it's white? Wednesdays Jun 2016 #40
Why then, does Bill Clinton no longer have a license to practice law? loyalsister Jun 2016 #50
I'm still waiting for the 'logic' part... Maedhros Jun 2016 #78
I think this has been pointed out to you before, but it bears repeating: the FBI doesn't indict onenote Jun 2016 #42
They do recommend though, and a recommendation for indictment by the FBI would be NorthCarolina Jun 2016 #49
They don't even recommend indictments. They present their findings to the prosecutors, who make.... George II Jun 2016 #53
They do make recommendations. KULawHawk Jun 2016 #55
It just never ends...... George II Jun 2016 #47
In Bernie and Trump world itsrobert Jun 2016 #52
The use of shouty all CAPS! rjsquirrel Jun 2016 #54
Kickin' for the truth! Faux pas Jun 2016 #57
Maybe. Seems we have seen this happen before and nothing much came of it. GreenPartyVoter Jun 2016 #68
If anyone is indicted, it won't be Hillary. Shemp Howard Jun 2016 #77
"According to Brietbart News,..." Alrighty then, that settles it! Guilty! yellowcanine Jun 2016 #81
Keep hoping....... Beacool Jun 2016 #84
Latest Discussions»Retired Forums»2016 Postmortem»Email PROBE: Intel Offici...»Reply #50