Lynch seems to take queues about lying quite blatantly from the Clintons.

If our choices were already bad enough, we now have to deal with Stuart Smalley possibly factoring into all of this. Personally, I'll take Hanz and Franz as President/Vice President. 

Great question Mac. If you asked me this question 8 years ago I would said emphatically NO! But look at all the sh*t Obama has gotten away with with his Executive Orders circumventing Congress. So, who's to say what Drumpf could or would try to get away with should he be President. *Shudders*. Legally, he can't fire him and that's why Republicans are pushing for someone that has Political ties to Washington. Someone that can actually get things done in spite of Drumpf's own proclamation of being able to do just that. So, whoever Drumpf chooses as his VP is going to go along way in "uniting" the Republican Party and Drumpf knows this. It's also very important that whoever he picks is someone that can and will stand up to him. That's why I think that Newt Gingrich has the inside track for the VP slot over someone like Chris Christie who is nothing more than a doormat.

Let's also be clear for the record: Drumpf has ZERO business sense.  He has had multiple bankruptcies, his projects almost always fail, he's been sued tons of times for not paying contractors for work, and he literally would have made more money (almost twice as much as he has now, actually) if he had let the money his father gave him just accrue interest in the bank.  You know the phrase "a man born on third who thinks he hit a triple?"  Drumpf is a man who was born on third, then walked to second and convinced people that he was going the right way.

And even if he DID have business sense, government is not a business, and America is not a resource to be exploited.  People who try to run the government like a business almost always fail because the priorities of a business and a government are different.

Unfreaknbelievable... my gawd. Anyone else would lose their job. Period. How do the Clinton's do it?

Because being reckless is not a crime.  They're not bringing charges because the evidence is not weak enough to get any kind of conviction, and if they don't have a strong enough case to prove someone's guilt, there's no point in a trial.  Also, their point about an unsecured e-mail system might look bad in court considering the normal state department's e-mail was hacked, which they just announced.

Interesting read. Still tells me, politicians think and live on a different plane than anybody else.