Posted on 10/23/2015 4:34:11 AM PDT by WhiskeyX
A new poll from Citizens United, conducted among two thousand members between October 16 and October 20, shows overwhelming support for both the work of the House Benghazi Committee and the appointment of an impartial special prosecutor to investigate Hillary Clinton’s email server.
(Excerpt) Read more at breitbart.com ...
Where is both houses of congress? The republican majority should be leading the charge.
The Uniparty protects it’s own. They let her rope a dope yesterday. Droning on and on, boring highly detailed date, times, places, but no information only “We succeeded” at this or that meaningless meeting or conference while allowing her to run out the clock. Like she was winning in the final minutes of a football game.
Great success for her. No sound bites or video that reveals the witch and as Rush and others have said, now she can claim to have “finally laid this to rest and fully answered each question” which, of course, she did not do. In the snips I have seen she did not answer any question. Those from Rats were just invitations to read self aggrandizing speeches. The rest were just irrelevant things others said immediately prior to her giving more self aggrandizing speeches that barely landed even in the vicinity of the question.
No question, she is an excellent lawyer. Able to speak all day and half the night without saying anything, telling one lie after the next. Of course, she has had forty years of practice so she should be good at it. A fawning Brown Shirt Media is very helpful but she still had to make the performance. Bravo, Hillary! Not a reputation I would envy but no one can lie like Hillary.
Hillary is the GOPe’s insurance policy if they can’t stop Trump. The Washington Establishment Donor Class prefers Hillary, hands down, to Trump.
“”Those from Rats were just invitations to read self aggrandizing speech””
No one seemed to want to point out the irony of the dems complaining about the “partisan” tone of the committee while spending their allotted time attacking the Republican members. Only one dem asked any questions of Hillary regarding Benghazi. I can’t stand Duckworth but she at least stuck to the topic.
Boy! That Linda Sanchez from CA is a dim bulb, isn’t she? She asked Hillary only questions that she wouldn’t have to think about -
“You’ve told the truth, haven’t you?” “Yes!”
“You didn’t do anything wrong, did you? “No!”
“The sky is blue, isn’t it?” “Yes!”
“You’re more than happy to be here today to tell the truth, aren’t you?” “Yes!”
Sad day when her sister stole an election to unseat Bob Dornan and her skank sister followed suit...
- 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
Hillary was an officer of two organizations - the Clinton Foundation and her own marriage - which accepted donations/honoraria from creatures of foreign governments while she was Secretary of State. And certainly she never publicly asked Congress for permission for that entanglement. She reckons that there is “no controlling legal authority” to call her to account for that malfeasance. She’s probably right.
The fact that any self-respecting state government would pass a law against the selection of electors pledged to vote for any such person for POTUS - and note that the Constitution does not so much as state that state governments have to conduct a popular vote for electors for POTUS - is probably moot. In that sense, there probably are no self-respecting state governments.
Some sources are calling attention to a potential felony committed by Hillary Clinton’s relationship with Sidney Blumenthal while he was also employed by the Clinton Foundation with a consequent conflict of interest.
Just the fact that Bill got honoraria from foreign governments or entities thereof while his wife was SecState is an obvious disqualifier. But the problem is that the Constitution doesn’t institute a remedy for the violation of the provision.I say, the states - any state individually - obviously has the constitutional authority to enforce that provision - they even have the authority to choose electors according to the Nebraska plan - only two EV elected at large, another EV decided in each Congressional District in the state. So there should be no legitimate controversy over the power of the state to prevent its electoral votes from going to a corrupt candidate.
It would only take one or two purple states signing off on my proposal of banning anyone from voting for a violator of the ban on “presents, emoluments, offices, or titles” to torpedo the Clinton candidacy. At least, one might think that Republicans in all states would use that proposal as a wedge to embarrass any Democrat in their state who opposed it . . .
Note, BTW, that “prospective political candidate” is actually a “position of . . . trust.”What she did should be a disqualifier even as a private citizen in view of a presidential bid.
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.