Bill Clinton was impeached over a minor lie by the House

[Seeinghope]

Hillary Clinton has a problem with full disclosure and the truth...investigations in progress.

If she were to "win" the nomination, the GOP will dog her relentlessly on these issues and more. Her history of dishonesty and aversion to full disclosure will just make this worse.

In a Preisdency with Hillary Clinton this country will be frozen in gridlock just as it was with President Obama unless some slick deals are made behind closed doors. Will they benefit the American people or the Clinton's coveted 2nd term?

[Tarc]

1. Geez, how many dog-whistle terms can a "new" user fit into one thread?

[revbones]

4. Enough to mean you can't dispute any apparently. nt

[Jitter65]

31. Supposition is not evidence. nt

[Hortensis]

44. Yes, nor is a new screen name reason to trust motive.

Hardly! We are seen as some big players as pawns in a huge battle over who gets power and who does not.

[Tarc]

47. I have no desire to play Whack-a-Mole with new users

The current crop is more than a handful.

[revbones]

48. Apparently you do

since you seem to like replying... And new or not, it doesn't change things.

[Tarc]

49. Replying, yes. Debating, no.

Learn the difference.

[revbones]

50. Ooo zinger.

Yeah, that takes brains... But then you've got that avatar selected so I can't really expect much can I?

[DemocratSinceBirth]

60. You just implied your interlocutor is your intellectual inferior...

Please post your SAT, Stanford-Binet score, resume or curriculum vitae, et ecetera , with identifying information redacted of course, so the rest of us plebeians can decide for ourselves if Tarc really is your intellectual inferior.

Thank you in advance.

[merrily]

78. Please don't demand personal information from a poster.

And you don't need an IQ score to decide which poster seems more intelligent to you.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

82. What part of with...

What part of "with personal information redacted, of course" don't you understand ?

But thanks for trashing me and impugning my character. That seems to be your and your associates' raison d'etre.

[merrily]

85. A poster's IQ is not information personal to that poster? Are you serious?

As far as trashing you and impugning your character, no one did that to you, but your reply did that to me, not to mention to my "associates."

Whomever you imagine my associates to be, no one but me has anything to do with my posts to you or anyone else. Perhaps you are thinking that some collusion is occurring on this board? That may well be so and I have seen some screen caps that evidence that, but I assure you I am not part of any group that colludes.


As far as trashing you being my raison d'etre, that is quite a silly and very false statement and you are very well aware of that unless you are also imagining posts made by me.

I rarely post to you and never about you. So unless you can link to many posts by me that trash you and impugn your character, you should acknowledge you made an untrue accusation and then apologize.

I will either those many links or your apology.

What a post!

[DemocratSinceBirth]

88. An I Q score is personal information. However I was asking him to provide his IQ, not his identity.

You made it seem like I was asking for the latter to put me in a bad light. It is interesting that you chose to hold me out for opprobrium and censure and not the poster who suggested another poster had an intellectual deficit because he supports a certain candidate.

[merrily]

91. No links to back up your over the top false claim? Only more false claims? Hmmm.

I told you to stop demanding information that you yourself concede is personal information. That does make make "it" seem as anything but what it was. No one reads only my posts on a thread anyway, even me. Suggesting what I said was in any way misleading to anyone is merely your impugning my character falsely again without even having apologized for your first batch of false statements about me.


It is interesting that you chose to hold me out for opprobrium and censure and not the poster who suggested another poster had an intellectual deficit because he supports a certain candidate.

More falsehoods. All I did was tell you to demanding personal information from a poster. That is not even remotely oppropbrium and censure, ffs. If you see it as such, you should consider whether your skin is too think for a political message board, rather than mischaracterizing my posts.

Nor did I single you out. Almost every thread in GD: P would have someone posting or implying that a poster who disagrees with them may not be the sharpest tool in the shed. Nothing about that was the least bit unusual for a message board, even though you went into drama mode pretending something about it was unusual and untoward.

Demanding someone post their IQ score is, however unusual, even for GD: P. So, there was no singling out, just an appropriate response to one very ordinary and common type of post and an appropriate response to one very unusual and inappropriate type of post.

Now, are you going to apologize at some post for making false statements and accusations about me, or are simply going to make another round of additional false statements about me? Life is far too short for me to continue replying to you if the latter is the best you can demand of yourself and manage.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

95. It is telling

It is telling that you take umbrage at me for asking a fellow poster to prove his intellectual acumen after he belittled the intellectual acumen of another poster, simply for his or her choice of candidate, while completely ignoring the basis for my request in the first place.

When all you have is a club the whole world looks like prey.

[merrily]

96. Okay so no links, no apology, no add'l false claims, only repeating a false claim you've

made before and I just addressed in my recent post before this. So, that is all you will demand of yourself, and/or can manage.


Have a pleasant evening

[DemocratSinceBirth]

97. Why, thank you.

Have a pleasant evening

[Berniemagic]

103. I already determined that guy's IQ

That's all I got to say about this.

[merrily]

104. Amazing the drama from a simple, polite post like

Please don't demand personal information from a poster.

And you don't need an IQ score to decide which poster seems more intelligent to you.

Who knew?

[Betty Karlson]

72. Shoot the messenger is very popular a game on a certain side. eom

[Dr Hobbitstein]

73. Utilizing shitty messengers is a very popular game on a certain side. eom

[Betty Karlson]

75. The more vulgarities ("shitty" ) you use, the weaker your argument appears to be. eom

[Dr Hobbitstein]

76. Fuckity-fuck-fuck-fuck. nt

[one_voice]

87. Science Proves That Swearing Makes You #!$%ing Smarter

If you think that people who swear a lot do it because they’re ****ing stupid ***holes, think again. A new study found that people who have a large vocabulary of swear words have a large vocabulary in general and that’s a sign of intelligence. So shove that up your $%# you *$(!

"… when it comes to taboo language, it is a common assumption that people who swear frequently are lazy, do not have an adequate vocabulary, lack education, or simply cannot control themselves."

According to their report in Languages Sciences journal, that’s the belief that psychologists Kristin Jay and Timothy Jay of Marist College and the Massachusetts College of Liberal Arts set out to disprove. Their simple yet effective test consisted of asking a group of 18-to-22-year-old subjects to list as many swear words or phrases as they could in a minute, followed immediately by listing as many animal names as they could in the next minute.

http://mysteriousuniverse.org/2015/12/science-proves-that-swearing-makes-you-ing-smarter/

[Dr Hobbitstein]

89. Fuck yeah!

[merrily]

83. Are you saying that the OP is a shitty messenger AND some "side" is using the OP as a

messenger, as opposed to the OP simply making a post of his or her own initiative.

Wow, on so many levels, wow.

[Dr Hobbitstein]

84. No, that's not what I said at all.

I was responding to the "shoot the messenger" snark that you Bernie supporters LOVE to throw out after you're called out on posting RW bullshit. That would be the "shitty messenger". It had nothing to do with the OP (who, BTW, posted a pretty shitty message).

[merrily]

86. Which RW source did the OP of this thread cite? "You Bernie supporters?" I decline to be

a poster child for either the millions of supporters of Bernie in the world or for the hundred of active DU posters who support Bernie.

[Dr Hobbitstein]

90. Once again, wasn't about the OP.

Do try to keep up.

[merrily]

92. Ah, so you posted something on this thread that has nothing to do with the OP, then associated it

with me by claiming "you Bernie supporters" do it, when it has nothing to do with me, either.
Got it!

[Dr Hobbitstein]

98. I was responding to another poster about something THEY said.

If you happen to be one of the many that cries "you're shooting the messenger" in defense of BLATANT right wing garbage, then yes it's about you. If you are not, then it is in NO way about you.

[merrily]

100. mmm. You replied to post 72, which had replied to post 4. Both those posts were about this thread.

So, your reply to post 72 was a complete non sequitur, if it did not apply to this thread. Inasmuch as I did not assume a complete non sequitur, I asked about the application of your comment to this thread.

Your comment to me was "you Bernie supporters."

You have a great evening, too.

[Dr Hobbitstein]

101. .

[merrily]

102. My, what a cool response to "You have a nice evening."

Posting an image of an obtuse triangle doesn't refute or change a thing, but I appreciate your effort.

[merrily]

79. As is any form of deflecting away from the topic of any OP

negative or potentially negative as to Hillary.

[leftofcool]

42. They are crawling out of the woodwork.

I am petty sure this one is a repeat. MIRT can check.

[Hekate]

94. Remember when...

...we used to get to play with them awhile? Ah, the good old days.

JURY: Not a word is out of order.

[merrily]

77. Hillary has a problem with full disclosure is a dog whistle? What is the hidden or implied meaning?

Last edited Wed Mar 23, 2016, 12:22 PM - Edit history (1)

"Dog whistle" implies something sneakier than "negative statement about Hillary" but that doesn't turn the OP into a collection of dog whistles.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dog-whistle_politics

[revbones]

2. But doesn't voting for Hillary mean

there'll be unicorns and rainbows?

You are 100% correct but I think your post misses one aspect. There'll be gridlock on positive social change, if Hillary was to champion any whatsoever. That said, it's far more likely that she will champion free trade agreements along with further Wall St and industry deregulation. Those are things the Republicans and corporate Democrats will both get behind.




For the inevitable jurors, once the alerting Hillary supporter wakes from their fainting:
The Terms of Service clearly state "But that does not mean that DU members are required to always be completely supportive of Democrats. During the ups-and-downs of politics and policy-making, it is perfectly normal to have mixed feelings about the Democratic officials we worked hard to help elect."

[NWCorona]

3. I will never forgive Bill for lying to my face

But the impeachment was bullshit.

[Seeinghope]

8. I am not saying that it wasn't bullshit

I am saying that he was impeached over a lie, PERIOD. The lie was about nothing that had anything to do with his duties as our President of the United States. It had everything to do with spite, hatred and the GOP'S willingness to spend the American's money to pursue their goal which was "GOTCHA". If a lie about sex could lead to impeachment then any other lie could too.

The point being is that Hillary Clinton is known to lie about important things. In the White House there will be much more scrutiny and many more questions.

[Hekate]

99. The implication being as follows: You know Clinton Derangement Syndrome is about spite, hatred, etc

BUT you are willing to let the GOP winnow the field of Democratic candidates for us Democrats (and of course I am assuming you are a member of the clan) just so we won't offend them by supporting any Clintons because they hate Clintons.

Did I get that right?

[Seeinghope]

11. He should have said it is none of your business

Hindsight is 20/20 though

[WDIM]

5. They will dog Hillary unless

She gives them what they want cuts in medicare, more war, and more gridlock.

[ViseGrip]

6. Bill Clinton lost his license to practice law for awhile

[sufrommich]

7. And then he was re-elected.

Maybe most people can see through the fake scandals and faux outrage.

[mmonk]

12. He was impeached in 1998.

[sufrommich]

13. The fake scandal was all the news leading up to his

re-election and he won anyway. I know that pisses some of you off,but facts is facts and fake scandals are fake.

[Lizzie Poppet]

70. But that's not what you said.

You responded to a post about Clinton being impeached with:

And then he was re-elected.

(emphasis mine)

I realize changing your story might be considered a kind of "tribute" to your candidate, but still...

[mmonk]

14. The House impeaches. The Senate decides whether or not office removal.

[joshcryer]

15. Impeachment is an accusation.

He was acquitted.

[Seeinghope]

18. It went thru impeachment on 2 counts thru the House.

[joshcryer]

26. See post 14.

[KMOD]

10. Hillary Clinton is one of the most transparent candidates

ever.

She does not have a problem with full disclosure or truth.

For Bernie Sanders supporters who deny it, this is yet another smear, not a policy difference.

[Seeinghope]

16. What about the Goldman Sachs speeches?

That should be innocent enough. It should help her with her ties to Wall Street if they are so bland.

Her e-mails. She has been dancing around all of that for a long time. Common sense should have told her to be more careful about using a more secure server unless she was trying to keep certain information from scrutiny. The reluctance of full cooperation in an immediate fashion of those e-mails.

Her landing on a Tarmak under fire and having to be be rushed off under protection was the story, until the video showed up.

Not too transparent.

[KMOD]

21. Honestly, at first I was hoping she would release them

but after seeing the ridiculous expectations and demands of her, I can understand why she is telling people no.

She has been fully cooperative with the emails.

[mmonk]

17. I think you are smitten by your candidate.

[Seeinghope]

20. True. I used to be a full Clinton supporter but too much information has come to light over

The years for me to continue to follow them. There were always whispers and rumours but they came from the GOP. Who at that time really believed the GOP....consider the source, and all that.

Over the years and seeing how the policies unfolded and some of the truth came to life I became disenchanted. Watching their behavior and how they conducted themselves the last 8 years really opened my eyes.

Looking back at the candidates histories, there really is only one honourable choice. That choice wants us to be involved and needs us to be involved in the changes that we need in our country. This is one of the biggest things wrong with our Government, the majority of the population don't care anymore. They feel helpless. Bernie Sanders is inspiring people to care and empowering them and will continue to do so. This is the way and only way that real change can happen

I remember the Democratic values of years ago and I remember what the Democrats stood for years ago, and it isn't what I am seeing now.

I feel like I am hearing and seeing Republicans expressing their values....not Democrats.

[KMOD]

22. I think that's a really silly thing to say.

I'm supporting Hillary Clinton because she is the most qualified, most prepared and most knowledgeable candidate running for President.

[mmonk]

55. Transparency isn't the right word.

[nichomachus]

24. She IS transparent

Most thinking people can see right through her.

I'll be waiting to see the speech transcripts to see how truthful she is.

[upaloopa]

34. Don't hold your breath we all see how truthful her opposition is

so you are never going to see any transcripts.

[cherokeeprogressive]

33. Yup. Clear as mud, that one is.

[onecaliberal]

19. Her lies are a matter of national security, not +*^% jobs.

[rock]

23. Everything you say is crap

But I only have one question. What the hell do you mean by "win"?

[Autumn]

25. Any deals made behind closed doors will not benefit the American people/

Oh hell any deals made with the GOP will benefit the corporations, the wealthy and something watered down for the people.

[Trust Buster]

27. This thread is something I'd expect to see on a Right wing site.

[nichomachus]

29. How much time do you spend on right-wing sites?

You seem to know a lot about them.

[Trust Buster]

36. I have 21,000+ posts on a site that's 60% Right to 40% Left.

These tactics are very familiar to me. I've also studied the Republican millionaire funded Clinton attack machine of the last 25 years. Same thing, all allegations and zero proof.

[nichomachus]

28. Bill Clinton lied to a federal prosecutor -- that is not a "minor lie"

If you did that, you would go to jail.

[msanthrope]

62. No....you probably would not. The grand jury refused to true bill

him because they actually read the statute... you have to lie about something material.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

63. He did, where?

Why wasn't he prosecuted?

[BernieforPres2016]

69. Absolutely right

That "minor lie" was enough to get Bill Clinton disbarred from practicing law before the Supreme Court and from practicing law in Arkansas for 5 years.

Richard Nixon resigned from the California bar and from practicing law before the Supreme Court after he left the Presidency. Nixon tried to resign from the New York Bar Association, but they would not accept his resignation unless he would acknowledge that he could not successfully defend himself against charges of obstruction of justice. Nixon refused to do that, and a New York State Court investigated and then disbarred him.

[upaloopa]

30. The GOP can pound sand

They have been dogging Hillary for ever now they have been joined by so called Democrats

[Trust Buster]

37. Pretty soon these Berniebots will also accuse Hillary of killing Vince Foster.

[okasha]

40. I thonk one inveterate already has.

[BeyondGeography]

32. I enjoyed my eight years off from this particular kind of shite

Thanks, Obama.

[Katashi_itto]

35. I am thinking a half dozen impeachments, she will take the record.

[merrily]

38. No, Bubba was impeached for lying to a grand jury under oath while his job as sitting Pres.

was to uphold the law and his responsibility as a lawyer and as a citizen was to be honest to the grand jury.

Bernie won't raise this, or her emails, or Benghazi or her refusal as First Lady to comply with subpoena for two years until her record miraculously appeared in the family dining room of the White House or her refusal to comply with an FOIA request for 2 years until her lawyer decided if an email related to her family matters or not, etc. Bernie also won't go into wannabe First Spouse Bill's shenanigans or why Susan McDougal did time for contempt of court, etc. But you can bet your a$$ a Republican nominee will. And it will matter some, but not 100%, that the Clintons have an answer for everything. If she is the nominee, it's going to be frickin brutal.

Thank heaven we still have a better choice.

[fun n serious]

39. It's been brutal

for decades. They not only fight GOP'ers but Tea party LEFTIES as well. This is nothing new. The GOP and Bernie for that matter have their own secrets. We have not seen the Clinton MACHINE trample it all just yet but we will.

[merrily]

41. Sorry, that is not going to happen by November. All the old stuff and new is going to get

thrown. The Clintons are not going to magically and suddenly produce, within the next several months some magical, finality antidote they have not been able to produce since Gennifer Flowers stepped forward. The only basis for claiming they will is false bravado or magical thinking or wishful thinking. Sorry to inject reality into this discussion.

[fun n serious]

45. I have never known a more resilient couple

in my life and I am willing to bet neither have you. Brutal smears are nothing they can not handle, that was my point. Bernie and all the GOP'ers put together would crumble if faced with the same. IMO they will be faced with some real difficult questions they can not answer.

[merrily]

54. LOL. Resilient is not the word I'd use and you sure moved that goal post fast and far.

Your other post claimed they could put all the stuff to rest, now, you drop that and claim their resilince will do something or other, though I am not sure exactly what.

Whether they are resilient enough to handle either smears or actual history, like lying to a grand jury on national TV, is not the point. The election is not about them. It's about voters and whether all the stuff that a Republican will fling at both of them, some of true, whether you admit it or not, will damage her chances in November, if she is the nominee. I assert that they damaged Gore's. Bush didn't run on restoring dignity to the White House for nothing. And, now, there is even more stuff than there was in 2000 and more than there was in 2008. She is already perceived as dishonest and untrustworthy. So the idea that she has all these magical answers, like Nancy Reagan blazed trails in AIDS and stem cell research, are useless if they are not going to be believed.

I am basing my comment on history and polls. You're basing yours on wishful thinking, much like your comment that Bernie can't handle himself. LOL! Unless you come up with something better than your desire to see Hillary in the Oval Office, I don't see a real point in continuing this, do you? I already do get you think highly of her and want her to be President. But that's not going to get her elected, either.

[fun n serious]

57. I disagree.

I think she is more honest than Bernie. I think she is more electable. I am basing my comments from life experience and history not polls. Por ejemplo.. I think MD and NY will go to Hillary. I don't see landslide wins for Bernie on the West Coast either. Wins? Yes. Landslides? No. Which is what he needs.

[merrily]

65. Yes, I got that you disagree from your first post, but you have no come up with anything new. Also,

you're trying to change the subject to the primary. We were talking what Republicans would do to Hillary in the general, not the primary. Your life experience is not a new thing. That is assumed. So is mine. They pretty much cancel each other out and mean squat in America's voting booths anyway.

As far as the general, I have my life experience, polls and history and you still have cited nothing but your life experience. You say "history" but I have no idea what history you mean, unless it's the Clinton's history of having an answer for everything, whether anyone believes them or not.

The only thing different than in 2000, when Clinton baggage helped W, and 2008, when Hillary lost to Obama, despite all her answers, is that there is now much more stuff for a Republican to fling at her and the public sees her as more dishonest and untrustworthy than they did then.

I think these exchanges have more than run their course. Have a pleasant rest of the day.

[farleftlib]

58. Resilient? NO. Shameless? Absolutely

They are both corrupt to their cores and they should slink away in disgrace. But there are still taxpayer dollars to hand out to corporate donors so they'll just keep coming back until we're all slaves to the 1% or locked away in debtors' prisons. Of course they stand up to legit criticism, because they have no consciences.

[fun n serious]

64. Can you prove that?

Can you prove that allegation of taxpayer dollars going to corp donor?

[Rilgin]

59. You are right. She has been vetted for years. However, the results do not show resilancy

They are incredibly resiliant. Facing allegations of corruption, they set up a Foundation and bank 150 million dollars in Ten years all without anyone noticing except over half the people in the US who now say that Hillary is dishonest. (Sarcasm intended).

They have been attacked for years and years and it has not fazed them. All those attacks and all her past votes and actions have had no affect on public perception of her. Hillary runs for president with the highest favorable ratings of any candidate in history. (Sarcasm intended).

Actually I think I got it wrong. She is not resiliant at all. She has been vetted but in being vetted she is now viewed unfavorably by a majority of the US. Other than Trump, she has the lowest favorables and worst net favorable/unfavorable ratings at this stage of an election of any candidate since they started taking polls. I do not think this is called resilancy in a politician unless you mean that unlike most politicans when they have been vetted and show such high unfavorables they choose not to run for office especially when they can continue to sell influence to corporate america through speeches and through the foundation.

Does any Hillary supporter know that when someone says that a candidate has been vetted, it usually means they have come though favorably rather than unfavorably like Hillary.

[still_one]

43. then don't vote for her ok? I read beaucoup threads where the only common theme is to trash Hillary

I think most folks reading this DU understand that some Sanders supporters here will NOT vote for Hillary in the general election if she is the nominee. Got it.

So if all you have got left is flame bait, then that is pretty pathetic

[fun n serious]

46. Yes. We will rescue them from Trump/Cruz

We got this.

[Seeinghope]

56. If we cannot have an open and intelligent discussion between us than what are we going

To do if Hillary Clinton gets the nomination? These questions and many more will be asked by the GOP. If we cannot discuss things here then where can these things can be discussed? Do you just want to wait until the GOP starts with all of their questions and attacks? I would like answers so I know how to rationalise a possible vote for Hillary Clinton if Bernie Sanders doesn't get the nomination. If you cannot have these open discussions and answer questions then what would change my mind?

[fun n serious]

67. We've tried

We get hides when we say anything critical of Bernie here. We can not win here so we have gone to educate people on the ground.

[kgnu_fan]

51. They are not just a case of personal corruption. These are all about national security issues.

And policy issues. Huge mess. She brings all into White House.

[salinsky]

52. So, now our nominee should be determined by Republican pettiness and vindictiveness? ...

... no thanks.

[loyalsister]

74. In the context of the 90s

"I welcome their hatred" were really stupid words to live by.
As much od a farce as the impeachment was, Bill Clinton is the one who left the door open. He knew they wanted to take him down but told an uneccessary, disprovable lie in a situation that made it illegal.

Clinton victimology ideology makes them out to be "fighters" rather than people who occassionally get caught in scandals of their own making. It's like they have honed a sort of political Munchausen's syndrom. The fact that they both seem to be inclined to do it often makes them appear desperate. It's a quality I hope not to find in a president.

[randome]

53. No. Just like Democrats still suffer fr. Reagan PTSD, Republicans suffer from over-reach in the 90s.

They will be doubly afraid of 'roughing up' the first female President. Which is good. We can use that to our advantage.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]A ton of bricks, a ton of feathers, it's still gonna hurt.[/center][/font][hr]

[Seeinghope]

61. Don't think that Hillary Clinton will be treated decently by the GOP

The GOP has no integrity. They will say and do anything to get what they want to achieve. They did not care what they said about President Obama, he was the 1st black President of the United States. They will not soften towards Hillary Clinton because she is a woman, in fact they will be blatantly more sexist.

Just look at their policies. Their policies are sexist. That hasn't hurt them. They will make her an embarrassment to women.....that will be their strategy. That was their strategy in 92'. When George W Bush ran for President of the United States the biggest comment about Laura Bush was she had dignity and she was a lady. So don't think that the GOP will treat her with any respect.

[randome]

68. I bet we both hope you're wrong.

I think in some respects, our Reagan-style 'moment' in politics has come in two parts: Obama for the personality and Clinton for the old-school politics. These Presidencies combined will, I think, be just as earth-moving as Reagan's 'revolution' was, and will be a time we can look back on with pride.

Unlike the GOP's 'moment in the Sun', however, ours will be more lasting, as the GOP is undergoing its inevitable dissolution with the angry, white male losing much of his numbers and power.

But you could be right, and they will whine about Clinton and thrash about and generally behave like vicious animals toward her. But, hey, I think she can handle it.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]A ton of bricks, a ton of feathers, it's still gonna hurt.[/center][/font][hr]

[hrmjustin]

66. Well I read your OP and I am still voting for Hillary.

[Dem2]

71. Be afraid!

Be very afraid!!

[Tarc]

80. Bill Clinton was impeached by a vengeful Newt-led Congress, not for "the minor lie"

They never forgave him for "stealing" the presidency from Bush Sr, who was anointed for 2 trems as soon as he became Reagan's VP. The also never forgave Clinton for humiliating them during the budget impasse and shutdown. He made them blink first, and they went looking for any excuse to stick it to him after that.

[Vinca]

81. If she wins the White House there will probably be "Impeachment Mondays" in the House.

They'll spend most of their time trying to oust her. On a positive note, it will be the first time in 8 years they've done anything at all.

[Hekate]

93. One dog-whistle after another. Have a nice day.