The Clintons have $150,000,000 that they openly report.
. . . and Hillary said they were “dead broke” when they left the WH. Furthermore,means that from 2003 through 2012, when Hillary was in the Senate or heading up the State Department, no organization in which she was a principal or a partner was entitled to accept anything from foreign governments without the consent of Congress. That would include honoraria for speeches by either Bill or Hillary, and it would include donations to any foundation named “Clinton.†And it certainly include a foreign foundation which was forbidden by foreign law from revealing the sources of its contributions.
- 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
Certainly the Obama Justice Dept. isn’t going to do anything about the above, or it would already have her up on charges for that and for Servergate. But Obama hired Hillary, and therefore he is responsible for any malfeasance which she committed, especially when it was not actually secret from him.
But the states have “plenary authority,” as SCOTUS once put it, to control the selection of their Electors for POTUS. Any state could keep Hillary’s name off the ballot simply by forbidding the selection of any elector pledged to a candidate who was in violation of the constitutional prohibition against accepting foreign government gifts, no matter how laundered.Not only does each state have such authority on the plain face of the matter, SCOTUS has supported McCain-Feingold as an anticorruption measure. It upheld it by a mere 5-4 margin because it violated the First Amendment. A SCOTUS which swallowed that camel is ill situated to strain at a nonexistent gnat on this issue. When the legislation I propose would enforce another provision of the Constitution.