When I looked at it I got to 323 if everything borderline broke against Trump. Which red(ish) states do you have going blue?

 

 

I still think she may surprise in the land of McCain. My darkhorse pick from months ago was Georgia. If she gets AZ, but loses GA, she'll be at 333(if Trump picks off the one district in Maine). GA minus Arizona and she finishes with 338(or 339 if she takes all of Maine). If Tues is a good day for Lady Clinton, she will roll him with 349 or 350. So, I'd say if she's north of 330, AZ or GA will be the reason.

It's possible, but it's going to take quite a bit to surpass some of our former leaders....Warren Harding (who was a philander and gave in to blackmail because of it and had cabinet members who got arrested), Grant (who oversaw dramatic raises to Congress and the Presidency and had the Secretary of the Treasury among others involved in bridery scandals), Jackson (who helped create the spoils system and created a system of "you scratch my back and I'll scratch yours" that still exists) are just a few of many Presidents who were unbelievably corrupt or surrounded themselves with corrupt individuals.

 

Politics at the highest levels has alsways been incredibly dirty.

 

I'm not defending Clinton or saying it's right. But HRC hasn't brought anything new to the table.

 

Don't forget Reagan and the hundreds of indictments handed out to his cabinet members.

Don't forget Reagan and the hundreds of indictments handed out to his cabinet members.

 

I do not recall.

Don't forget Reagan and the hundreds of indictments handed out to his cabinet members.

That is not true. Look it up. The truth is that the reason that there have been few indictments of Obama's cabinet members and other high ranking officials is that he has politicized the Department of Justice to a greater extent than any other president in modern history. With Eric Holder and Loretta Lynch in charge for 8 years, comparing the number of indictments with previous administrations is extremely misleading.

 

The Obama administration has been as scandal plagued as any administration in my lifetime. The difference has been two Attorneys General who have simply looked the other way and refused every request to name independent counsels, despite obvious conflicts of interest.

I still think she may surprise in the land of McCain. My darkhorse pick from months ago was Georgia. If she gets AZ, but loses GA, she'll be at 333(if Trump picks off the one district in Maine). GA minus Arizona and she finishes with 338(or 339 if she takes all of Maine). If Tues is a good day for Lady Clinton, she will roll him with 349 or 350. So, I'd say if she's north of 330, AZ or GA will be the reason.

I expect some serious mud slinging over the next three days, so things may change, but if the mud fest is even, it is very unlikely Hillary will take either AZ or GA because she is having to do some damage control in Michigan, Pennsylvania, New Hampshire, and maybe a few other states that she thought were safe a couple of weeks ago. I would not be surprised if she even makes a stop or two in Virginia, but her health may limit her appearances.

 

If I were Trump, I would challenge Hillary to match the number of campaign stops that he makes in the next three days to draw even more attention to her poor health.

That is not true. Look it up. The truth is that the reason that there have been few indictments of Obama's cabinet members and other high ranking officials is that he has politicized the Department of Justice to a greater extent than any other president in modern history. With Eric Holder and Loretta Lynch in charge for 8 years, comparing the number of indictments with previous administrations is extremely misleading.

 

The Obama administration has been as scandal plagued as any administration in my lifetime. The difference has been two Attorneys General who have simply looked the other way and refused every request to name independent counsels, despite obvious conflicts of interest.

 

 

Reagan administration scandals - Wikipedia

Reagan administration scandals - Wikipedia

You said that their were hundreds of indictments of Reagan cabinet members. That was not true and the link that you posted does nothing to set the record straight. How many indictments do you think there would have been had Reagan appointed political hacks as his Attorneys General and refuse to consent to the appointment of independent investigators?

 

Again, no numerical comparison between the Obama administration and any previous administration - including both the Reagan and Clinton administrations - will provide an accurate reflection of the corruption in the current administration. No president has politicized federal agencies like Obama has - none have come close.

Reagan administration scandals - Wikipedia

You said that their were hundreds of indictments of Reagan cabinet members. That was not true and the link that you posted does nothing to set the record straight. How many indictments do you think there would have been had Reagan appointed political hacks as his Attorneys General and refuse to consent to the appointment of independent investigators?

 

Again, no numerical comparison between the Obama administration and any previous administration - including both the Reagan and Clinton administrations - will provide an accurate reflection of the corruption in the current administration. No president has politicized federal agencies like Obama has - none have come close.

 

If Reagan had refused to cooperate with Congressional oversight committees the way that Obama has, he would have been impeached and removed from office, with the help of at least a few Republican votes. Democrats under Tip O'Neill were not spineless wimps like John Boehner, Paul Ryan, and Mitch McConnell have been. Fighting crime was a bipartisan activity back in those days.

You said that their were hundreds of indictments of Reagan cabinet members. That was not true and the link that you posted does nothing to set the record straight. How many indictments do you think there would have been had Reagan appointed political hacks as his Attorneys General and refuse to consent to the appointment of independent investigators?

 

Again, no numerical comparison between the Obama administration and any previous administration - including both the Reagan and Clinton administrations - will provide an accurate reflection of the corruption in the current administration. No president has politicized federal agencies like Obama has - none have come close.

 

If Reagan had refused to cooperate with Congressional oversight committees the way that Obama has, he would have been impeached and removed from office, with the help of at least a few Republican votes. Democrats under Tip O'Neill were not spineless wimps like John Boehner, Paul Ryan, and Mitch McConnell have been. Fighting crime was a bipartisan activity back in those days.

 

 

I was looking at this.

 

 

The presidency of Ronald Reagan in the United States 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.^[1]

I was looking at this.

 

 

The presidency of Ronald Reagan in the United States 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.^[1]

So, what you were looking at did not say that 138 cabinet members were indicted. In fact, it does not even say 138 administration officials were indicted. You conflated the number of administration officials who were investigated with the number that were indicted and promoted them all to members of Reagan's cabinet. What the numbers prove is that Reagan did not have his Attorney General impeding the investigation and prosecutions of members of his own administration.

 

Eric Holder and Loretta Lynch have not done their jobs and have earned the praise of their boss for their dereliction of duty, IMO.

So, what you were looking at did not say that 138 cabinet members were indicted. In fact, it does not even say 138 administration officials were indicted. You conflated the number of administration officials who were investigated with the number that were indicted and promoted them all to members of Reagan's cabinet. What the numbers prove is that Reagan did not have his Attorney General impeding the investigation and prosecutions of members of his own administration.

 

Eric Holder and Loretta Lynch have not done their jobs and have earned the praise of their boss for their dereliction of duty, IMO.

 

My bad. Reagan's administration was marked by multiple scandals, resulting in the investigation, indictment and conviction of over 138 admnistration officials. The largest number of any POTUS ever.

 

Source: WikiPedia

 

 

That more technically sound enough for you to admit that Reagan had the most scandalous presidency on paper?

My bad. Reagan's administration was marked by multiple scandals, resulting in the investigation, indictment and conviction of over 138 admnistration officials. The largest number of any POTUS ever.

 

Source: WikiPedia

 

 

That more technically sound enough for you to admit that Reagan had the most scandalous presidency on paper?

Sorry to belabor this point, but you still got it wrong. The passage that you quoted said "investigation, indictment, or conviction of over 138 administration officials" The article does not say that all of those who were investigated were indicted and it does not say that all of those who were indicted were convicted. Whoever wrote the article phrased it to maximize the number.

 

Attorney Generals Holder and Lynch have been more aggressive in impeding, ignoring, and quashing Obama's scandals than seeking the truth. As I said, the numbers that you quoted are misleading because of the politicization of the entire executive branch under Obama. There should have been many indictments filed in cases that the Department of Justice virtually ignored. The IRS targeting conservative groups filing for tax-exempt status, the deaths of veterans who died of treatable conditions while waiting months for medical appointments in VA facilities, and the Fast and Furious gun walking scandals were the tip of the iceberg, and there were no indictments in any of those scandals.

 

Touting the number of investigations, indictments, or convictions under the Reagan administration only proves that his DoJ held many officials accountable for their actions. The fact is that has not happened in the Obama administration, and Hillary Clinton and her gang are the most glaring examples of Obama and his DoJ failing to hold criminals among his ranks accountable for their actions. Really - immunity agreements, evidence destruction, and no indictments after thousands of government email messages were mishandled and destroyed - many of them containing classified information, the compromise of which placed our national security at risk? Obama's reaction? Everybody makes mistakes that they regret. That is not even a slap on the wrist for criminal actions.

My bad. Reagan's administration was marked by multiple scandals, resulting in the investigation, indictment and conviction of over 138 admnistration officials. The largest number of any POTUS ever.

 

Source: WikiPedia

 

 

That more technically sound enough for you to admit that Reagan had the most scandalous presidency on paper?

Sorry to belabor this point, but you still got it wrong. The passage that you quoted said "investigation, indictment, or conviction of over 138 administration officials" The article does not say that all of those who were investigated were indicted and it does not say that all of those who were indicted were convicted. Whoever wrote the article phrased it to maximize the number.

 

Attorney Generals Holder and Lynch have been more aggressive in impeding, ignoring, and quashing Obama's scandals than seeking the truth. As I said, the numbers that you quoted are misleading because of the politicization of the entire executive branch under Obama. There should have been many indictments filed in cases that the Department of Justice virtually ignored. The IRS targeting conservative groups filing for tax-exempt status, the deaths of veterans who died of treatable conditions while waiting months for medical appointments in VA facilities, and the Fast and Furious gun walking scandals were the tip of the iceberg, and there were no indictments in any of those scandals.

 

Touting the number of investigations, indictments, or convictions under the Reagan administration only proves that his DoJ held many officials accountable for their actions. The fact is that has not happened in the Obama administration, and Hillary Clinton and her gang are the most glaring examples of Obama and his DoJ failing to hold criminals among his ranks accountable for their actions.

 

Really - immunity agreements, evidence destruction, and no indictments after tens of thousands of government email messages were mishandled and destroyed - many of them containing classified information, the compromise of which placed our national security at risk? Obama's reaction? Everybody makes mistakes that they regret. That is not even a slap on the wrist for criminal actions.

Sorry to belabor this point, but you still got it wrong. The passage that you quoted said "investigation, indictment, or conviction of over 138 administration officials" The article does not say that all of those who were investigated were indicted and it does not say that all of those who were indicted were convicted. Whoever wrote the article phrased it to maximize the number.

 

Attorney Generals Holder and Lynch have been more aggressive in impeding, ignoring, and quashing Obama's scandals than seeking the truth. As I said, the numbers that you quoted are misleading because of the politicization of the entire executive branch under Obama. There should have been many indictments filed in cases that the Department of Justice virtually ignored. The IRS targeting conservative groups filing for tax-exempt status, the deaths of veterans who died of treatable conditions while waiting months for medical appointments in VA facilities, and the Fast and Furious gun walking scandals were the tip of the iceberg, and there were no indictments in any of those scandals.

 

Touting the number of investigations, indictments, or convictions under the Reagan administration only proves that his DoJ held many officials accountable for their actions. The fact is that has not happened in the Obama administration, and Hillary Clinton and her gang are the most glaring examples of Obama and his DoJ failing to hold criminals among his ranks accountable for their actions. Really - immunity agreements, evidence destruction, and no indictments after thousands of government email messages were mishandled and destroyed - many of them containing classified information, the compromise of which placed our national security at risk? Obama's reaction? Everybody makes mistakes that they regret. That is not even a slap on the wrist for criminal actions.

 

The article said 138 total administration officials were investigated, indicted or convicted and that number is the most for any administration for any POTUS ever. I'm not sure what the confusion is. I already said my bad for saying hundreds were indicted. Hundreds weren't indicted. 138 total from the administration were either investigated, indicted or convicted.

The article said 138 total administration officials were investigated, indicted or convicted and that number is the most for any administration for any POTUS ever. I'm not sure what the confusion is. I already said my bad for saying hundreds were indicted. Hundreds weren't indicted. 138 total from the administration were either investigated, indicted or convicted.

Your substitution of "and" for "or" changed the meaning of the passage that you misquoted. There was no confusion on my part. The fact that the Obama Department of Justice has refused calls for independent investigators and impeded Congressional investigations of scandals does not mean that the Obama administration has not been riddled with scandals that should have resulted in more investigations, indictments, and convictions.

 

Even if the number that you quoted had been 1,000 and the corresponding number for Obama's administration was zero, it would say as much about the willingness of Barack Obama to sweep corruption under the rug as it would about corruption in the Reagan administration.

 

Remember how many times that Obama has proclaimed that there is not a smidgen of evidence that Hillary Clinton committed any crimes in the destruction of State Department email messages and the routing of classified information through her home-brew server? Judges do not issue search warrants without evidence establishing probable cause and search warrants have been issued and executed in the investigation of Hillary Clinton and her co-conspirators. That takes more than a smidgen of evidence and Obama's repeated lies to the contrary provides strong evidence of an orchestrated cover-up reaching the highest levels of the Obama White House.