..here. Again, no smoking gun will be found but they're all welcome to look.
Same dirt different day

rethugs. And as to the voters - most are easily fooled. And the rethugs have the money to fool them. And they have a lot of "scandal" that they will be using to fool the people. John Kerry was a decorated veteran and they crucified him.

But as with everything else they've dug up to stop Hillary Clinton, this will be brought up & end the same.
Meanwhile the Clinton's should simply go about their business.

Oh, I remember. Yeah, it's applicable here.

Again, this will go nowhere.
I don't think Bill's too worried.
He's more likely to be laughing and saying " Bring it on. Nothing to hide with this either."

They've been doing this wag & pointing at him for 25 yrs.
He knows who they are.
Meh.

But have a go at it.
I'm sure some will be anxiously waiting for the demise of Hillary & Bill Clinton.
May as well get started, they have been in public office for 40 years. Lots to dig through.
Nite.

And we all know his an honorary Bush family member. How we trust anyone with that title?

For challenging a predetermined script. He basically implied it was already decided by Bush Sr that Clinton himself would be the Democratic nominee since Perot was throwing a monkey wrench into Bush's plans of world domination abroad and mass incarceration at home.

I saw this with my own eyes. And it's Ross Perot who admitted a big motivation of his for entering that race was derailing Bush who he knew was aiding importation of cocaine for the Contras as Perot was an actual anti-drug zealot. Clinton was allowed to be the Democratic nominee because of his previous connections and subservience to Bush. You know the difference between your sarcastic, schoolgirl emojis and your opinions??? No one laughs at your emojis.

Keep that tinfoil tight!

Even if 500,000 people in the USA are locked up on conspiracy charges alone. Maybe you should try investigating the definition of words. It's a waste of time for many of us to have to defend our observations to smug, holier than thou types like yourself who use deflection to hopelessly make your contrived points. That threat Bill made had nothing to do with Vince Foster. I'm surprised you didn't bring up the moon landing as that's what people like you usually do to distract from any point being made that doesn't fit in with your predetermined view of reality. I understand you may be unwilling to reorganize your belief systems out of fear, spite or intellectual laziness but it's really not my problem. That threat Bill made was in front of hundreds of people at the 1991 PBS Roundtable Primary Debate. He turned beet red and actually wagged his finger there too. If you can find it on video watch for yourself. I was working for Jerry and it was actually kind of scary what Bill did. He made the threat in response to Jerry having the moderators throw a photo up on the big screen for the audience. It showed Bill and conservative blue dog Democrat, Sam Nunn, inspecting a line of prisoners from one of the very first private prison boot camps. All the detainees were Black, in striped fatigues and shackled leg to leg. It made Bill and Sam appear like WW2 Nazi wardens inspecting the prisoners at a POW camp or worse. Bill exploded and threatened Jerry in front of everyone. I remember CLEARLY his words. "You better watch out,Jerry, you don't know what you're messing with." He was red in the face wagging his finger aggressively and giving Jerry the most threatening stare you ever saw. People in the campaign conceded that Bill rose quickly that month because the money put behind him was the same brokers involved with Bush and he was the allowed, safe candidate that would support the Bush foreign policy agenda and let Bush and Co off the hook for Iran/Contra in case Bush lost. Bush only lost because Perot took conservative votes as Bill only won with a plurality and not majority. You should try thinking before you speak. Maybe your fantasies of aluminum foil have clogged your brain with Alzheimer's.

You should look up what this symbol means: ¶

one can find a picture of almost ANY political figure with someone undesirable. It's the nature of the game. However, all you've done is made unsubstantiated claims about some made up threat from Bill Clinton to Jerry Brown. You're grasping at straws, trying your damnedest to vilify the Democratic Party's nominee (vis-a-vis her husband). Matter of fact, I don't think I've seen you post much at all in support of the Democratic Party, minus Bernie Sanders. It's telling.

And you hardly pay attention. Go ahead flag me. Usually people like you I ignore after a little back and forth. You are the one grasping at straws. Facts get in the way of your predetermined reality. I didn't say that picture was a crime. But it's says a thousand words. If you can't admit it then you're in denial. Keep idol worshiping and trying to take faithful democrats eye off the ball. Keep hating Bernie. You think we care. We are way beyond your convenient, cardboard cutout viewpoints. Some of us live in reality. And that we suffer fools who try to lecture us about reality when it's obvious they either live in a bubble, are intellectually immature or just haven't had any life experiences to transcend their status quo existence is par for the course. I saw what I saw and I bet I've had a thousand times more experience firsthand with democratic reps and their staff than you could even dream of. Bernie is obviously the best and most real candidate. Who would I like? Someone even more to the left of him. There are no far left candidates. There are far right ones and anyone pushing the center to the right is responsible for their rise. Keep trying though. Maybe one day you will stop believing spoonfed BS.

Foundation has turned out to be rightwing bullshit. At least you are consistent.

You seem to me to be a RW Democrat: authoritarian, intolerant and reactionary. Of course, I am a newbie, and this is just my opinion.

reading it.

And HRC too!

America will decide whether they like it or not.

And certainly not the same tent!

Just today, my dad told me he doesn't know who he will vote for if she wins the primary. I asked him what his problem with Hillary is, and he said, "Getting paid $250,000 to make a speech." He mentioned Bill too, and thinks Bill should be able to live on his pension from the taxpayers. He says that no one could make a speech worth that much money -- the banks must be buying something more than a speech.

Hillary has known for a while that she would be making a run for president in 2016. She created hurdles to victory by taking all this money from the 1% for speeches. It was as if she was poking her finger in the eye of the Occupy Wall Street young people, arrogantly assuming they will vote for her because they have no other choice. I don't really think this is going to work out for her and us. My fingers are still crossed she doesn't become the nominee.

No matter which candidate or party. Nobody deserves a quarter million dollars for an hour speech, even if the name is Clinton. Or Bush.

There is never enough money...even when your spouse intends to be POTUS.

He should only give paid speeches at venues that will increase his wife's chance of winning. Then it becomes a money making endeavor and free campaign publicity.

That's just absurd when you think about it. And these aren't campaign speeches for the most part, they're 30 minute intro speeches. It's just not conductive to the campaign though it might garner more inspiration for high value donors.

We need utter disclosure in this election following Citizens United.

has the potential to see one of the lowest voter turnouts in modern history, or a large percentage of people voting third party. And we all know who is affected the most negatively by a low-turnout election.

I do not want him anywhere near Public Office again.

Ever.

I'm tired of Hillary, too. They should step aside and give some new people a chance. The same goes for some of our most famous movie stars.

and especially so around here.

With that out of the way, this is not just a spouse and it has zero to do with gender.

Hillary's spouse just happens to be a former president. Bill and Hillary sold themselves as a pair during the 1990's elections. They run the foundation together. This is therefore all relevant and is why their former labor secretary says cut this shit out, it looks unethical.

IF you want to speak somewhere Bill, then go do it! The rethugs will try anything they can find to hurt the Clintons, no matter if it's the truth or a lie, whether it's legal or not, they don't care. Take anything and through it up against the wall and see what sticks. I don't understand what Reich's thoughts are, but I think he's wrong about this. There's no way the Clnton's can ever stop doing everything the rethugs will criticize so bi;, do what you believe is right and screw the Pubbies!

Has a lot of weight coming from him, imo.

But, Bill needs to be kept occupied.

And, being the Clintons, they will do the max permissible under the law.