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.

 

Would you agree that the Obama DOJ has stonewalled many investigations and indictments?

Would you agree that the Obama DOJ has stonewalled many investigations and indictments?

 

How does one put a number on that?

Two days out.

 

65.5% - 34.5%

^ It seems to have stabilized right around that. It's been hovering between 33 and 35.5% most times I've looked at it. They're still giving Trump greater percentages in some states and he's pulled ahead in each borderline state that had been trending his way, but the polls haven't moved in other states that HRC was dominant in for his percentages to creep up more. New Hampshire seems to be the only other one that is still sliding back. I'm very interested to see how accurate this all turns out to be.

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.

 

Yes. For the third time I have admitted I messed up the initial quote and have posted the correct quote at least twice now.

Would you agree that the Obama DOJ has stonewalled many investigations and indictments?

 

I wouldn't know. I haven't paid attention to Obama's DOJ other than when they cleared Darren Wilson of any wrongdoing in the Michael Brown incident. I was speaking strictly on how corrupt Reagan's tenure was and how WikiPedia said it was the most scandalous of any presidency. That's why I was wondering how many people in the Obama administration have been investigated, indicted or convicted? Reagan is at 138. What is Obama's tally?

How does one put a number on that?

 

I'd say they probably use that Common Core math to get the answer.

I wouldn't know. I haven't paid attention to Obama's DOJ other than when they cleared Darren Wilson of any wrongdoing in the Michael Brown incident. I was speaking strictly on how corrupt Reagan's tenure was and how WikiPedia said it was the most scandalous of any presidency. That's why I was wondering how many people in the Obama administration have been investigated, indicted or convicted? Reagan is at 138. What is Obama's tally?

 

We will probably never know thanks to how corrupt this DOJ has been.

How does one put a number on that?

 

I don't know. I doubt we will ever know thanks to how corrupt this DOJ has been.

No president has politicized federal agencies like Obama has - none have come close.

 

:lol2: :lol2: :lol2:

^ It seems to have stabilized right around that. It's been hovering between 33 and 35.5% most times I've looked at it. They're still giving Trump greater percentages in some states and he's pulled ahead in each borderline state that had been trending his way, but the polls haven't moved in other states that HRC was dominant in for his percentages to creep up more. New Hampshire seems to be the only other one that is still sliding back. I'm very interested to see how accurate this all turns out to be.

The polls in Pennsylvania, Michigan, and New Hampshire have all moved sharply in Trump's direction. That is why Hillary and her top surrogates are still campaigning in those states, instead of trying to add Arizona or Georgia to her column.

 

Internal polling dictates the campaign stops a presidential candidate makes in the days immediately before the election. Hillary Clinton's recent rallies and scheduled events show that she is playing defense in places that looked safely blue only a few days ago.

We will probably never know thanks to how corrupt this DOJ has been.

 

Good point. Kind of makes me wonder about this Darren Wilson situation. Hmmmmmm

The polls in Pennsylvania, Michigan, and New Hampshire have all moved sharply in Trump's direction. That is why Hillary and her top surrogates are still campaigning in those states, instead of trying to add Arizona or Georgia to her column.

 

Internal polling dictates the campaign stops a presidential candidate makes in the days immediately before the election. Hillary Clinton's recent rallies and scheduled events show that she is playing defense in places that looked safely blue only a few days ago.

 

Sounds pretty smart. Meanwhile Trump is once again getting busted telling bold faced lies at his rallies. :lol2: :lol2:

I wouldn't know. I haven't paid attention to Obama's DOJ other than when they cleared Darren Wilson of any wrongdoing in the Michael Brown incident. I was speaking strictly on how corrupt Reagan's tenure was and how WikiPedia said it was the most scandalous of any presidency. That's why I was wondering how many people in the Obama administration have been investigated, indicted or convicted? Reagan is at 138. What is Obama's tally?

The DoJ should never have been involved in the Michael Brown shooting. Brown was a suspect in a state criminal case and the investigation of his shooting should have been left to state and local authorities. The fact that the DoJ involved itself is just evidence of the racial and political bias of the Obama administration.

 

I have already explained multiple times why the 138 number, which you initially quoted inaccurately, is not evidence that the Reagan administration was any more corrupt than any other administration. Federal agencies in the executive branch employ hundreds of thousands of people and if the Attorney General is doing his or her job, there will be investigations, indictments, prosecutions, and convictions of federal employees working in any president's administration. A high or low number is as much a measure of the DoJ's commitment to seeking justice as it is a measure of corruption.

Sounds pretty smart. Meanwhile Trump is once again getting busted telling bold faced lies at his rallies. :lol2: :lol2:

It is a good thing for Trump that he is running against a world class liar who could become the second member of her immediate family to be impeached. IMO, the evidence that Hillary has committed high crimes and misdemeanors is much stronger than it was against her husband.

 

As for being smart, Trump and Hillary are simply campaigning where their pollsters tell them they should. The best way to judge the trend in a presidential campaign is to pay attention where the candidates spend their time on the two days before the election. Trump has the momentum. Whether it is too little, too late will be decided on Tuesday, but there is no debating who has the momentum right now.