Clinton scandals

In the most recent round of improprieties regarding Hillary Clinton and her stint as secretary of state, we have her word that there was no “pay-to-play” involved. But in the wake of her emails, Benghazi, her interviews with the FBI, and her claims of being broke while earning $350,000 for an hour-long speech, I think the average person would appreciate something a little more concrete.

Everyone from the members of the U.S. Supreme Court down to our county commissioners recuse themselves or abstain from votes if there is an appearance of a conflict. But we’re supposed to take Hillary at her word that no influence peddling took place.

She could have avoided the whole mess, if she

The Review-Journal welcomes letters to the editor. Letters should not exceed 250 words and must include the writer’s name, mailing address and phone number. Submissions may be edited and become the property of the Review-Journal. Fax: (702) 387-5241 Email: letters@reviewjournal.com Mail: Letters to the Editor P.O. Box 70 Las Vegas, NV 89125 wanted, by not having these discussions in the first place. But that doesn’t fit in with the Clintons’ view on how they are above the standards applied to “ordinary” people. They wallow in these scandals and then just lie to the public, expecting us all to believe whatever story they happen to manufacture. Clinton’s first act as president would be a blanket pardon of herself.