File under "Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence?"| Submit your comments on this article |
| Government |
| Was Loretta Lynch picked to be a gate keeper and cover up criminal investigation of Eric Holder? |
| 2014-11-12 |
| File under "Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence?" |
| Posted by:Gluque Glavilet4102 |
| #5 but not yet believing in More coffee this morning please. |
| Posted by: JohnQC 2014-11-12 09:34 |
| #4 Harry Reid is powerless come January. It might be that enough Democrats can be peeled off now to properly vet this nominee and vote with the Pubs. Of course, I'm in an overly optimistic mood this morning too--but not yet quite in unicorns, tooth fairies or man-made "climate change." |
| Posted by: JohnQC 2014-11-12 09:33 |
| #3 The 'pubs should go talk to all the Democrats that will still be in DC next year and point out that if they try to cram this through during the Lame Duck session they will never get anything next term. |
| Posted by: AlanC 2014-11-12 07:37 |
| #2 So she went to school with Holder's wife. Was she in the 'choom' gang? Did they swap? Are there credible details of their lives that would suggest there is a conflict of interest that should be investigated? I think we understand the blackiness. |
| Posted by: Skidmark 2014-11-12 01:52 |
| #1 "Lynch", NOT "Lynn", although this is not to argue "Stand by Your Man" has no relevance in Holder-gate. |
| Posted by: JosephMendiola 2014-11-12 00:52 |