Posted on 10/23/2015 4:27:52 AM PDT by WhiskeyX
It has indeed been a long, hot summer for Candidate Clinton. And hey, it’s only early August!
A new blow to her personal expectation that all of us should just agree she should be president right now is a new poll, in which fully 69 percent of those following the Hillary Clinton email scandal want the Justice Department to appoint a special prosecutor to determine whether she mishandled classified information on the private email account she used while secretary of state.
Was the poll heavily influenced by last week’s revelations that some of Clinton’s emails contained classified information, despite repeated claims to the contrary by the Democratic presidential candidate?
More bad news for Clinton: the poll question was asked before the revelation. It is doubtful that learning Clinton’s emails may have contained classified info lessened people’s’ desire to see a special prosecutor look into all this.
Not surprisingly, support for a special prosecutor was stronger among Republicans (89 percent) than Democrats (39 percent), but a high 76 percent of independents want Justice to make the move.
(Excerpt) Read more at hillarydaily.com ...
Next? President Clinton.
Special prosecutor. my Aunt Tilly’s butt. Frog march in chains to Gitmo, TODAY. If ever there was a domestic terrorist worthy of the name, she is it.
Only 69%? What the heck is wrong with the other 31%?
And the GOP is where?
The very least we should expect is that Republican state legislators would embarrass Democrats by proposing to enforce the above stricture with a statute forbidding the selection of any elector pledged to vote for a violator of that constitutional rule.
- 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
What would be objectionable about a law forbidding electors to be elected to vote for someone who was an officer in any organization - including a marriage - which accepted, and did not disgorge, funds from a foreign government or creature thereof?
The precedent that SCOTUS overturned term limits implemented via ballot access limitation does not, IMHO, apply. Although the Constitution calls for election of Congressmen by the people, it explicitly assigns the choice of means of selecting the electors of each state to the legislature of thereof. The state and not the people thereof selects its electors - the only reason we think otherwise is that there is a gentleman’s agreement that Congress won’t contest a selection of electors by the people of a state. But note, even then the selection is subject to variation among states; in Nebraska and one NE state only two electors are elected at large in the state; each of the others is elected within a congressional district of the state.
And under what rationale would a judge overturn enforcement of a provision of the Constitution??
Arguably, any candidate for POTUS holds an office of “trust” in the sense that we have no reason to accept a candidate for POTUS who is bought and paid for by foreigners (we even have -albeit unconstitutional, IMHO - laws limiting how much Americans can contribute to a candidate’s campaign!) whether or not such candidate was an office holder when taking the swag from foreign governments.
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.