Originally Posted by
Busyman™
I don't particularly like Clinton either but the blurb on her basically has that she's blocking the release of records, there was a complaint filed against her by the website, and her top campaign contributer is a criminal.
Proof of corruption....I think not. It's sensationalist.
Apparently you aren't too familiar with
Judicial Watch.
They go after
everybody.
In any case, the section of your post I've emboldened interests me, as it indicates you are more admiring of a successful effort to obscure facts than you are curious about why the effort is being made to begin with.
Does the fact that this tactic is and has been the
modus operandi of the Clintons for all "35 years" (to use Hillary's description) of her/their "public service" bother you at all?
Do you ever wonder about how one thousand dollars magically becomes one
hundred thousand?
Ever been curious about Vince Foster's untimely demise, or the shroud the Clintons threw over it?
How about all of the PRK and Chinese money which flowed into Clinton/democrat coffers?
Ever see the pictures of Hillary confidante Susan Thomases and actress Markie Post jumping up-and-down on the "Lincoln" bed in the Clinton White House?
Are you at all curious about Sandy Berger's theft of top secret documents from the National Archive?
I assume you can grasp the distinct possibility that she might be trying to hide some of these (to use
your term)
"direct links" to criminal behaviors?
All this (and much, much more), but you can't find it in yourself to denounce Hillary, even though she was broad-ass-deep in the whole mess.
I am gratified to hear, nonetheless, that you won't vote for her...
Bookmarks