Replies

It’s not even Labor Day.

This.
It is over a month before October Surprise time. It is up in the air.
LS, do you have any explanation why I seem to be the only American who has ever read the Constitution? Talk Radio is all over “Pay to Play,” and yet according to the Constitution Hillary is guilty until proven innocent:
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
If the Clinton Foundation is a slush fund, it is a fraud and she is guilty of accepting gifts from foreign governments - which the Constitution section quoted above presumes to be bribes. But even if the Clinton Foundation is (“were” definitely seems more like it) an efficient and effective charity, the fact that it is named “Clinton” gives Hillary a good name is due in part to foreign government contributions. Thus, an efficient and effective charity named “Clinton” constitutes a “title” of sorts . . . and a title of any kind whatever, funded by foreign governments, is taboo. Unless of course it was pre approved by Congress. And indeed Obama did pre approve it - and the Senate, arguably knowingly, confirmed her nomination. But no one has averred that the House of Representatives ever was even asked.
So either way, Hillary is in the wrong for being a principal in a foundation accepting foreign government money. And the case against Bill’s honoraria funded by foreign governments is about as strong; arguably he held an office of profit (as POTUS pensioner) and trust (as former POTUS, but also as the spouse of the Secretary of State).
The “Pay for Play” aspect is damning, all right - but evidence of it is unnecessary. The Constitution presumes guilt in the case; we don’t need no stinkin’ evidence.