[TigerClaws]

We found out this week the FBI, despite evidence of terrorist activity, shut down investigating all Muslims because of orders from on high.

This is the ‘independent’ body you expect to seek justice?

Lynch runs the DOJ.

Obama runs the FBI (part of Executive Branch).

You think they are going to touch Hillary?

Really?

Just picture this: Hillary is SECRETARY OF STATE. She and her husband take in MILLIONS of dollars from foreign countries (community property so it’s going straight to her) from the very countries she’s got authority over.

Hillary won’t face any charges over anything. Ever.

[Wingy]

Good points all. However, bare in mind that she is about to lose an election, TO DONALD TRUMP! That cannot happen.

Now I'm sure that you are correct in that Hillary will do no time or face serious sanctions. My guess is a small fine and probation, but the true sin was losing to Trump. Too many things have been set into motion for that to happen.

[ronnie raygun]

We have a man who cant be bought, almost everyone that can be boughtor the seller is sitting on the sidelines wondering what to do or better yet what can they do. We will see rats and piubes,foreign countries, Muslim terrorists, crony capitalists,the muslim broitherhood all working together for a common cause.........to stop Trump. I do believe if we dont succeed it is over johnny!

[redfreedom]

‘You think they are going to touch Hillary?”

My gut feeling is they want to touch Hitlery, but being told not to. There’s hope due to the statute of limitations.

In the interest of fair justice, she should be given a trial. If this does not happen we will be no different than a third world banana republic where there is mass corruption on the upper ends.

The a Uniparty gets elected (Clinton or Bush) justice will never prevail and corruption will get worse.

If we get Trump or Cruz in, we have a chance. We are so screwed if this does not happen and I think America knows it.

[conservatism_IS_compassion]

Hillary is SECRETARY OF STATE. She and her husband take in MILLIONS of dollars from foreign countries (community property so it’s going straight to her) from the very countries she’s got authority over.

That’s my hobby horse with Hillary. Given that the Dims have no one else (other than, as you say, Warren) we know that Hillary will not be indicted on anything. Certainly not on classified info abuses, completely under Obama’s purview.

OTOH, the following parameters:

1. acceptance of that lucre by Bill and by the Clinton Foundation, with Hillary a principal in both her marriage and the foundation, is flatly unconstitutional. As you no doubt agree, it does not matter for this purpose whether the Clinton Foundation’s use of the money is or is not pure as the wind-driven snow. Congress did not authorize her to benefit from foreign government money. Even if she cured cancer with the money, getting it was unconstitutional.

2. each state has plenary power over the appointment (the Constitution does not mention election) of its Electors.

3. any state could therefore prevent Hillary from winning its Electors. It would not even take keeping her off the ballot, justifiable as that would be. Just put her on Row E in the middle of the third parties, and that would cost her - and, BTW, the rest of the ticket - plenty of votes.

4. It would be crucial if a blue or a purple state passed a law compromising the ability of a violator of the constitutional prohibition in Article I Section 9 against corruption to get its electors.

5. You would not expect a blue state to do it, and it would be hard or impossible even in a purple one. But you would think that the Republican nominee would raise the issue. And draw the comparison with McCain-Feingold, which Dims love and which was limited by the Citizens United case which Dims revile. McCain-Feingold abridges freedom of the press, according to 4 SCOTUS justices, and yet it was approved by 5 others on the grounds of keeping politics from being corrupted by money. How does a Dim then oppose enforcing the prohibition of money grubbing from foreign governments? The law would not have to mention Hillary at all, but everyone would know its effect.

I just do not see how the Dims in purple states would handle that issue. Other than, of course, delay. But simply discussing the issue in purple states should be pretty toxic politically for the Dims.

The rationale for opposing Hillary’s name being on the ballot is simple: by putting a name on the ballot the state - especially on Row A or Row B - the state in effect recommends the candidate for consideration by the voters. How can your state recommend that you vote for a corrupt person???

As to constitutionality, there is no case that the states even have to conduct an election to appoint its electors. And, if someone tried to bring a case to court, the answer could be, “Do you actually admit you think you have standing?”

[BwanaNdege]

Hillary won't face any charges over anything. Ever.

"...it is appointed for man to die once, and after that comes judgment" Hebrews 9:27