What led you to that conclusion?

I think this part:

Looks to me like Refco was doing the bribing.

Lou, did you find what you were looking for in the new emails?

Just wanted to point out that those are mutually exclusive options.

Nah, Huey's post about the poor Clinton's getting picked on for 20 years reminded me of the first national Hillary scandal.
Edit: read that wrong. I was not looking for anything in those emails. Judicial watch filed the FOIA request and Hillary wanted them public.

Didn't Hillary murder a lawyer in the nighties? I don't see how an email server scandal will hit when that missed.

Clinton body count was already in the dozens by then. Probably in the hundreds by now.


I WANT TO SEE THE BENGHAZI EMAILS!!!

Hillary got an iPad and a Blackberry? Google should put all the negative stories to the top of the search engine.

Oh, so what were the positive policy outcomes Refco got by magic-ing 100 grand into Hilldawg's bank account?

fmp

Dunno. The fellas had plenty of legal and regulatory issues.

Just another item on the long list of HEY GUYS I WONDER WHAT'S GOING ON HERE?!

My bad, the awards were by Judge Loren Smith, Jones was the one that held 2 government employees in contempt of court for witness tampering and wanted the DOJ to investigate the NFS and BLM for RICO act violations.

They one every step of the way from when the case was filed in 1991 as the government drug it out until the appeals court ruling. Oddly enough that was the first time they had to self represent as the lawyers fees had bankrupted them.

You may be impressed with a government that will drag people through the courts, loosing all the way for two decades until you can no longer afford proper representation. I'm not.

Hage, Bundy, Tombstone AZ, and the Las Vegas Valley Water District all have/had problems with BLM and NFS. It's not just about the ranchers, the Feds want the water rights.

So you are choosing option c) doesn't understand how the legal system works (since your argument that was 100% pure bull**** was that the government was refusing to pay a judgment when they obviously have zero obligation to pay a judgment the appeals court tossed out). OK, fair enough.

Also your contention now, just to be clear, is that Hage A) did not have legal counsel in the appeals court (who the hell are the lawyers whose names are on the brief as arguing for plaintiff?) and B) had a $14.5MM judgment in their favor and couldn't pay a lawyer or find one willing to take their case on a contingent fee basis? OK, go ahead and argue that where you first brought it up so we can get back to Hillary I guess.

New polling from PPP: http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/...

On the Democratic side things are pretty steady. Last month Hillary Clinton led Bernie Sanders by 35 points and this month she leads him by 35 points again.

Democratic Primary

Clinton- 55%
Bernie Sanders - 20%
O-Malley 4%
Webb - 3%
Lincoln Chafee -1%
Lawrence Lessig - 1%

From the Wiki page...

The average in Iowa has her at +21.8

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epo...ucus-3195.html

And this has been falling. The trend is not her friend.

None of this has to do with the validity of the appellate court's decision. Great work.

i agree she has been falling. especially when u include biden in the race, her numbers dip. i think up by 35 nationally is pretty definitive. barring this email thing getting worse or somehow just never ending...or biden mania, she is a lock.

And of course you 100% back the SCOTUS decision in Heller, right?

I think Scalia's interpretation of the 2A is pretty wonky, but I'm not going to deny the validity of the opinion and threaten violent revolution because of it. Lol.

Oh this is horse****, and you know it's horse****. Keep carrying the water.

I would go so far as saying the appellate court in Hage on the Takings clause was just flat wrong. I find akin to the government saying you can't take a crap in your toilet, but we haven't taken anything cuz you can still use it as a flower pot. I'm I ready to start a revolution? Not yet, but I'm closer than you.

I do find it interesting that the LVVWD is taking the Bundy approach with them, as opposed to the Hage/Tombstone approach, they have fined the LVVWD and LVVWD have refused to pay.


Look, even if you don't think that Hillary should be breaking rocks in the pen, or picking up trash along the highway, wouldn't you agree that the optics of this are bad enough that she should not be considered as a potential president?

Much much more likely to say her craven and opportunistic vote for war with Iraq should be a disqualifier than the optics of the bull**** "scandal" du jour.

So, no.