The presidency of Ronald 'I Can't Recall My Lies' Reagan 
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Presidency_of_Ronald_Reagan> was marked by 
multiple scandals, resulting in the investigation, indictment, or 
conviction of over 138 administration officials, the largest number for any 
U.S. 
president <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/President_of_the_United_States>.[1] 
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reagan_administration_scandals#cite_note-1>

On Saturday, October 29, 2016 at 8:25:13 AM UTC-5, Travis wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> http://www.wnd.com/2016/10/a-presidency-from-hell/
> A presidency from hell?Pat Buchanan: Clinton would take office with 2/3 
> of nation believing she is untruthful
>
> Published: 22 hours ago
>
>  
>
> Should Donald Trump surge from behind to win, he would likely bring in 
> with him both houses of Congress.
>
> Much of his agenda – tax cuts, deregulation, border security, deportation 
> of criminals here illegally, repeal of Obamacare, appointing justices like 
> Scalia, unleashing the energy industry – could be readily enacted.
>
> On new trade treaties with China and Mexico, Trump might need economic 
> nationalists in Bernie Sanders’ party to stand with him, as free-trade 
> Republicans stood by their K-Street contributors.
>
> Still, compatible agendas and GOP self-interest could transcend personal 
> animosities and make for a successful four years.
>
> But consider what a Hillary Clinton presidency would be like.
>
> She would enter office as the least-admired president in history, without 
> a vision or a mandate. She would take office with two-thirds of the nation 
> believing she is untruthful and untrustworthy.
>
> Reports of poor health and lack of stamina may be exaggerated. Yet she 
> moves like a woman her age. Unlike Ronald Reagan, her husband, Bill, and 
> President Obama, she is not a natural political athlete and lacks the 
> personal and rhetorical skills to move people to action.
>
> She makes few mistakes as a debater, but she is often shrill – when she is 
> not boring. Trump is right: Hillary Clinton is tough as a $2 steak. But 
> save for those close to her, she appears not to be a terribly likable 
> person. 
>
> Still, such attributes, or the lack of them, do not assure a failed 
> presidency. James Polk, no charmer, was a one-term president, but a great 
> one, victorious in the Mexican War, annexing California and the Southwest, 
> negotiating a fair division of the Oregon territory with the British.
>
> Yet the hostility Clinton would face the day she takes office would almost 
> seem to ensure four years of pure hell.
>
> The reason: her credibility, or rather her transparent lack of it.
>
> Consider. Because the tapes revealed he did not tell the full truth about 
> when he learned about Watergate, Richard Nixon was forced to resign.
>
> In the Iran-Contra affair, Reagan faced potential impeachment charges, 
> until ex-security adviser John Poindexter testified that Reagan told the 
> truth when he said he had not known of the secret transfer of funds to the 
> Nicaraguan Contras.
>
> Bill Clinton was impeached – for lying.
>
> White House scandals, as Nixon said in Watergate, are almost always rooted 
> in mendacity – not the misdeed, but the cover-up, the lies, the perjury, 
> the obstruction of justice that follow.
>
> And here Hillary Clinton seems to have an almost insoluble problem.
>
> She has testified for hours to FBI agents investigating why and how her 
> server was set up and whether secret information passed through it.
>
> Forty times during her FBI interrogation, Clinton said she could not or 
> did not recall. This writer has friends who went to prison for telling a 
> grand jury, “I can’t recall.”
>
> After studying her testimony and the contents of her emails, FBI Director 
> James Comey virtually accused Clinton of lying.
>
> Moreover, thousands of emails were erased from her server, even after she 
> had reportedly been sent a subpoena from Congress to retain them.
>
> During her first two years as secretary of state, half of her outside 
> visitors were contributors to the Clinton Foundation.
>
> Yet there was not a single quid pro quo, Clinton tells us. 
>
> Yesterday’s newspapers exploded with reports of how Bill Clinton aide Doug 
> Band raised money for the Clinton Foundation, and then hit up the same 
> corporate contributors to pay huge fees for Bill’s speeches.
>
> What were the corporations buying if not influence? What were the foreign 
> contributors buying, if not influence with an ex-president, and a secretary 
> of state and possible future president?
>
> Did none of the big donors receive any official favors?
>
> “There’s a lot of smoke and there’s no fire,” says Hillary Clinton.
>
> Perhaps, but there seems to be more smoke every day.
>
> If once or twice in her hours of testimony to the FBI, grand jury or 
> before Congress, Clinton were proven to have lied, her Justice Department 
> would be obligated to name a special prosecutor, as was Nixon’s.
>
> And, with the election over, the investigative reporters of the adversary 
> press, Pulitzers beckoning, would be cut loose to go after her.
>
> The Republican House is already gearing up for investigations that could 
> last deep into Clinton’s first term.
>
> There is a vast trove of public and sworn testimony from Hillary, about 
> the server, the emails, the erasures, the Clinton Foundation. Now, thanks 
> to WikiLeaks, there are tens of thousands of emails to sift through, and 
> perhaps tens of thousands more to come.
>
> What are the odds that not one contains information that contradicts her 
> sworn testimony? Rep. Jim Jordan contends that Clinton may already have 
> perjured herself.
>
> And as the full-court press would begin with her inauguration, Clinton 
> would have to deal with the Syrians, Russians, Taliban, North Koreans and 
> Xi Jinping in the South China Sea – and with Bill Clinton wandering around 
> the White House with nothing to do.
>
> This election is not over. But if Hillary Clinton wins, a truly hellish 
> presidency could await her, and us.
>
>
> ------------------------------
> [image: Avast logo] <https://www.avast.com/antivirus> 
>
> This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. 
> www.avast.com <https://www.avast.com/antivirus> 
>
>
>
> __._,_.___
> ------------------------------
> Posted by: "Beowulf" <[email protected] <javascript:>> 
> ------------------------------
>
>
> Visit Your Group 
> <https://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/grendelreport/info;_ylc=X3oDMTJmMnN0aXI2BF9TAzk3MzU5NzE0BGdycElkAzIwMTk0ODA2BGdycHNwSWQDMTcwNTMyMzY2NwRzZWMDdnRsBHNsawN2Z2hwBHN0aW1lAzE0Nzc2OTQ4NDI->
>  
>    
>    
> [image: Yahoo! Groups] 
> <https://groups.yahoo.com/neo;_ylc=X3oDMTJldTNsbDRwBF9TAzk3NDc2NTkwBGdycElkAzIwMTk0ODA2BGdycHNwSWQDMTcwNTMyMzY2NwRzZWMDZnRyBHNsawNnZnAEc3RpbWUDMTQ3NzY5NDg0Mg-->
>  
> • Privacy <https://info.yahoo.com/privacy/us/yahoo/groups/details.html> • 
> Unsubscribe <javascript:> • Terms of Use 
> <https://info.yahoo.com/legal/us/yahoo/utos/terms/> 
>
> __,_._,___
>
>
>

-- 
-- 
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum

* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/  
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls. 
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.

--- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"PoliticalForum" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to [email protected].
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Reply via email to