[The Urban Sombrero]

Your response, which consists of a transparent effort to divert attention away from the weapons grade corruption of the Clintons conflicts with your claims not be be a Clinton supporter. What services do you believe the Clintons provided that were worth $111 million and who do you believe benefited from those services? It is difficult to believe that anybody who plans to vote for Hillary does not understand that they will be voting for a very corrupt candidate.

Granted, you may be able to make a credible argument that the evidence is insufficient to warrant felony convictions of Bill and Hillary, but I never bought the "everybody does it" argument when liberals defended Bill Clinton for lying under oath, and I am not buying it to defend their influence peddling now.

Hold on: not all politicians have a "Lewinsky" in all the Oval Office detail. That is far-fetched.

However, politics at the Congressional level is a big money game. Every two years in the House, state wide every six. When big money is needed, Big Money shows up. It's the game career politicians have to play.

If I planned on voting for HRC at this point, I'd voice up. To this point, I am suggesting she is not Lucifer, that liberals are not Satan. Is that an endorsement? In my view, it is a statement about extremist tactics.

This is a difficult election. I will not decide who to vote for until after the debates, and am still considering DJT, as well as Johnson/Weld.