Replies

If she really loved the Democratic party. if she wanted what was BEST for the USA, if she had a real concern for her grandkids. She would gracefully bow out. She has way too much baggage and too many poc marks of liars, cheaters, scandals plaguing her. Please Hill, toss in the towel.

Mrs. Bill has advantages unavailable to a Republican candidate:

Much higher level of vote fraud than previously.

Millions of newly minted Democrat citizen voters (happening right along).

Throwout of the Military vote.

Probable GOPe Republican candidate as the opponent, no matter what the primaries produce.

Clinton got a million and a half new voters by swearing them in by the stadiumful before the 1996 election. Hussein will get much more than that.

If Mitt Romney really wanted to help the Republican Party he would create a video with him in a really nice suit in a beautiful office suite. He would start off introducing himself and then pick up a sheet of paper purporting to list all of his assets. He would read through them first claiming them as his own, but eventually going "Oops, these are Hillary Clinton's assets."

I think that would cause some waves.

Clinton has rebounded from a rough spring and summer with a strong fall. And while her eyes remain on the primary, she is already testing general election themes against her possible GOP opponents as they do battle in what could be a drawn-out Republican primary.

Shes been invisible for weeks.

They’re hypocrites. Tell us something we didn’t know.

TOO RICH

Hillary took flak for proclaiming that upon leaving the WH the Clintons were “dead broke” - but now it is reported that the Clintons control (directly or thru the Clinton Foundation) about a quarter of a BILLION dollars. Reportedly a lot of that money was contributed to the Clinton Foundation or paid to Bill for fabulously remunerative speeches he gave abroad.
Much has been made of the likelihood that the Clinton Foundation has functioned as a slush fund for the Clintons (see, Clinton Cash for example), but the reality is that unless Congress explicitly authorized it, the acceptance of foreign government money by Bill or Hillary, or by a foundation which they control, is unconstitutional no matter how that money was used.
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
It is not generally known that not only are presidents not elected by the overall popular vote in the country but by the Electoral College, the Constitution does not even provide for a popular vote to determine the winners of the electoral votes of each state.
Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress
This implies that although most states traditionally conduct winner-take-all elections for all of their electors, a state can - and Nebraska and Maine do - make other arrangements. The latter two states elect only two electors at-large in the state, and the remaining electors are elected in the Congressional Districts of the state.
The upshot is that each state legislature bears some responsibility for who the electors from their state are. Because each state legislature has “plenary power” as one SCOTUS justice put it, over the selection process. If the Democrats nominate Hillary, and if Hillary is on the take from foreign governments (and was so, unconstitutionally, while she was Secretary of State or senator), your state legislature is responsible if she gets your state’s electoral votes.
There are a number of things your state legislature has the authority to do, of various levels of courage/efficacy. The one which would require the most courage, and which would be most efficacious, would be to enact a law creating a cause of action against the state election authorities requiring that any violator of the anticorruption stricture in the Constitution be prevented from being on the ballot anywhere in the state, and that no electors pledged to vote for such person be named on the ballot.
That is not excessive; it is not even a criminal penalty of any sort. Placed in the context of the strictures of McCain-Feingold against otherwise constitutional (even constitutionally protected, in the opinion of three still-sitting SCOTUS justices) behavior, the lack of such a law in your state looks less like an imposition than like minimal necessary civic hygiene. Failing the courage to do what is right, your state legislature could allow pledged electors for such a miscreant to be on the ballot but outlaw the naming of the candidate to whom they are pledged on the ballot.
The least that your legislature should do is allow the miscreant and electors committed thereto on the ballot, but require that the line of the ballot assigned to them not be on either the top or the bottom row. Preferably in the middle of the list of fringe party candidates.

What is your state legislator/state senator doing about this issue?
The very least that should happen in your state is that the issue be bruited, and the Democrats be forced to defend the indefensible (which we all know is a habit with “liberals”).