Laws? Democrats don't need no stinking laws.
Just ask Our Dear Glorious Leader.
Posted on 10/13/2015 7:17:11 AM PDT by lbryce
Laws? Democrats don't need no stinking laws.
Just ask Our Dear Glorious Leader.
Ambassador Stevens would like to talk to Hillary about backup.
Read this article and then tell me again how that there is no difference between Feingold and Johnson! Feingold certainly would NOT have followed the trail to expose this latest outrage from Hillary and her minions.
FReep Mail me if you want on, or off, this Wisconsin interest ping list.
I wonder if this will be brought up during the “debate”.
(It’s not a debate. It’s a series of well-planned questions and well-memorized answers.)
The public will not be asked to think about hillary’s lawbreaking activities.
Another thing that happened on Oct 28, 2014 is an article appeared in The Atlantic entitled “The Crisis in U.S.-Israel Relations Is Officially Here.” It quotes an Obama admin official accused Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu of cowardice for not being willing to launch a strike on Iran’s nuclear facilities.
Why Netanyahu would be called a coward for failing to do so and not Obama whose military is equally capable o doing it if tasked to do it is unclear.
This particular point, in context, seems to conclusively establish espionage.
Because this implicates team obama as well.
Hey the little suck ups at CNN will ‘miss’ this story... how charming....
.
Every email sent from an ‘Intel’ architecture machine is coded with the processor id of the machine that sent it.
If one could determine what that ID is, they could search every server on the net for her emails, including those that have been deleted from her IT co’s archives.
My guess is that the FBI has done this task.
To anybody logical and sane, it would .... of course, this excludes, Hilly et al, Obama Admin, DOJ, probably FBI ... and all manner of Libs/Progs/Dems.
“Hillary is a terrible candidate. She needs to hang on a little longer - after a few primaries - before being indicted for obstruction of justice.”
I’m hanging my hat on the indictments coming near the end of January.
This is all obviously disqualifying, but who will “bell the cat?”I’ll tell you who could, if they dare: purple state governments:
Take that stricture at all seriously, and Hillary Clinton’s Foundation accepting big bucks from Saudi Arabia et al is an outright disqualifier. And would be, even if she had not been SecState at the time. It actually would be enough of a disqualifier that her foundation accepted foreign government money in anticipation of her presidential run.
- Article 1 Section 9:
- No title of nobility shall be granted by the United States: and no person holding any office of profit or trust under them, shall, without the consent of the Congress, accept of any present, emolument, office, or title, of any kind whatever, from any king, prince, or foreign state
Now obviously, we can’t trust the Obama Justice Department to address that malfeasance. But if Wisconsin - or any other “purple” state with a Republican governor and legislature - were to enact a law against putting a person who had headed an organization which had accepted $5000 or more from a creature of any foreign government on the ballot in Wisconsin (actually, against naming electors committed to such candidate), it would delegitimate Hillary's candidacy in the eyes of the Democratic Party. Which is what counts.
What say you, Wisconsin FReepers?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.