Trump: Hillary Clinton Shouldn't Be Allowed To Run For President

Breitbart.com ^ | December 2, 2015 | Michelle Fields

[Biggirl]

Donald Trump says that Hillary Clinton shouldn’t be allowed to run for president, and adds that her greatest legacy is that “she was a horrible Secretary of State.”

[upchuck]

Breitbart can piss-up-a-rope.

Try installing the add-on Ad Block Plus to your browser. Most of those ads, popups, etc. will disappear.

[Finny]

Wow. That Trump is just so brilliant, what a great judge of character! Nevermind that only seven or eight years ago he was saying:

""Hillary's a great friend of mine. Her husband is a great friend of mine. They're fantastic people. I mean, they're -- you know, the thing, they get a bad knock. She's a very nice woman. People think, tough, tough. And I guess she's tough, but she's a very nice woman. And he's a very nice guy. We know all about the smarts and how smart they are, and all, but they are good people."

So why did Trump endorse McCain in 2008, even though "The Donald" was a registered Democrat at the time? Maybe because Obama didn't choose Trump's "great friend" Hillary as a running mate????

But hey, maybe Trump was a lousy judge of character then, not now, of course. Back then he was eloquent (*cough*) and detailed in his explanation for endorsing McCain:

(see same link as above): "I'm endorsing McCain. I am basically very strongly -- you have to understand, I've known him, I like him, I respect him. ... He's a smart guy and I think he's going to be a great president."

Well, THAT explains his political change of heart! Gosh, who could argue with that??? Nevermind that these days, Trump is being hailed for calling McCain a "dummy."

What a judge of character that old blowhard celebrity showman is!!!

[Finny]

I'd like to hope President Trump would send her there.

Yeah. And maybe he'll even manage a "deal" where he gets reimbursed for the $100,000 he donated to her foundation.

But he was only a lot more stupid way back then -- oh, eight, ten years ago, ancient history. *rolls eyes*

[sergeantdave]

Give us a warning before you explode so we can duck.

[Finny]

You might try computing the truths being presented.

[sergeantdave]

“You might try computing the truths being presented.”

No. I’m going sleeping.

[Finny]

"You might try computing the truths being presented."

No. I'm going sleeping.

You got that right. :^\

[conservatism_IS_compassion]

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”).

[conservatism_IS_compassion]

I’d like to hope President Trump would send her [to prison].

There is a reason that will not happen. Imagine if you tell a sitting president that he is going to jail when he leaves office. His reply might very well be, “You mean if I leave office.”

You are then in banana republic territory. We don’t criminalize politics. Even tho the Democrats do.

[Graybeard58]

I’d like to hope President Trump would send her there.

*******************************************************************

Not likely at all. With Trump as president elect, Obama would simply pardon Hillary for any and all crimes she may have committed, whether she had been indicted yet or not.

Before you say “that wouldn’t be legal”, just think back to when president Ford opened that can of worms.