MorningGlory Posted June 27, 2016 Group: Royal Member Followers: 0 Topic Count: 1,022 Topics Per Day: 0.16 Content Count: 39,193 Content Per Day: 6.11 Reputation: 9,977 Days Won: 78 Joined: 10/01/2006 Status: Offline Share Posted June 27, 2016 4 minutes ago, Out of the Shadows said: And only one is the subject of multiple civil lawsuits in multiple states. Both are unfit to look at the White House let alone sit in the big chair. The problem being is that ONE of them will be in the White House. Civil lawsuits are not a deal breaker for me; national security violations are. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Running Gator Posted June 27, 2016 Group: Royal Member * Followers: 8 Topic Count: 91 Topics Per Day: 0.03 Content Count: 10,596 Content Per Day: 3.69 Reputation: 2,743 Days Won: 25 Joined: 06/16/2016 Status: Offline Share Posted June 27, 2016 1 minute ago, MorningGlory said: The problem being is that ONE of them will be in the White House. Civil lawsuits are not a deal breaker for me; national security violations are. Is there anything that the GOP candidate could do that you would declare to be a "deal breaker"? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SavedOnebyGrace Posted June 28, 2016 Group: Royal Member Followers: 0 Topic Count: 11 Topics Per Day: 0.04 Content Count: 4,056 Content Per Day: 14.97 Reputation: 5,191 Days Won: 0 Joined: 07/30/2023 Status: Offline Author Share Posted June 28, 2016 3 hours ago, MorningGlory said: The problem being is that ONE of them will be in the White House. Civil lawsuits are not a deal breaker for me; national security violations are. I agree with you completely. As someone who has worked on Secret and Top Secret projects, I can't believe Hillary is so arrogant to think she's above the laws of the United States. In this litigious society we live in, civil lawsuits are not all that uncommon for someone with deep pockets. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts