Hereâ€™s Why the Media Stopped Reporting on Clintonâ€™s New Emails

If I've told you once, I've told you a thousand times ... Hillary Clinton told the media not just once but several times that her secret e-mail server did not transmit or store sensitive or classified information.

The Clinton e-mail story broke in March when The New York Times provided the first public notice that the former Secretary of State had exclusively used a personal server for her electronic communications rather than an official and secured government e-mail system - a fact that only came to light through a congressional investigation into the sacking of our consulate in Benghazi.

Trump had lots of energy and fire power last night in Manassas, Virginia.

Black ministers were there, in a huge group ( endorsed his candidacy). There were only a few long winded politicians. They were old VA people and the crowd received them well.

He still says he has worked with the Clinton’s in the past. He said she does not have the stamina for the job. One event and then rests for 5 days before she tackles another 100-200 people...about the worst he said of her. Obama was STUPID over and over, sometimes her closeness to his programs was mentioned.

SO, it is not can he get the information, it is WILL HE USE IT??

Trump makes the point that Hillary should be in jail for her disregard for America’s security. This is true, but clearly not something which will happen until there is a Republican president. And, let us be clear-eyed about it, almost certainly not even then.
So the bottom line is that that does not matter, will not prevent her nomination, and possibly her election.

It is rather well known that the actual vote for POTUS is not the popular vote, but the Electoral College vote. And everyone knows that we all vote in our states to select electors in our respective states. It is very little noted, though, that under the Constitution Electors (from a given state) are not “elected” but “appointed.” Appointed, “in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct”
It follows that even if, as is universally the case, a given state’s electors are voted for, the Legislature of that state is ultimately responsible for the process. And thus can directly influence the result. There are many ways of influencing the result, and they pretty much boil down to the details of ballot access, if any, which a candidate enjoys in a given state.
Why would a state put its thumb on the scale in its control of ballot access, and how would it be justified?
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
is an anticorruption stricture in the Constitution. Reportedly the Clintons, “dead broke” in 2001, now control ¼ of a BILLION dollars, some derived from exorbitant “honoraria” for speeches delivered abroad and paid for by foreign governments and some of it donated to the Clinton Foundation by foreign governments. In either case the acceptance of that money, patently laundered while Hillary was a senator and/or the Secretary of State, was unconstitutional. Hillary might, of course, have asked permission of Congress for that. But she did not.
But the Constitution does not prescribe a penalty for its violation. The same people who inveigh against the Citizens United decision limiting the reach of McCain-Feingold are the ones who are ready to nominate Hillary, warts and all, for the presidency. State legislators should be put on the spot to explain how their support for “Campaign Finance Reform” squares with nominating a person who - without so much as a by-your-leave to Congress - amassed a large fortune from sources which are more than suspect, while on the Federal payroll. Starting from “dead broke.” Questions:

Why is such a person allowed to field a slate of Electors on the ballot. At all?

Why is such a person allowed to have her name on the ballot. At all?

Why is such a person allowed to have her name associated with a slate of Electors on the ballot? And finally,

Why is such a person allowed to have her name on Row A or Row B of the ballot for POTUS?

“”

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.