If Indicted, Can Hillary Prevail?

I did some exploratory digging to get a somewhat cogent answer to that question, and , in brief, here is what I found so far:

First, while there is a consensus that there are sufficient grounds for the FBI to recommend indictment, the chances of the Lynch-Obama duumverate permitting indictment is, at best and for purely political reasons, slim.

Second, if the charges are sufficiently egregious (multiple felonies), and if the Justice Department does not refer the matter to a grand jury for review and possible prosecution, it is generally believed that there will be electrifying high-profile resignations from and sensitive leaks by the FBI, the intelligence community and the Justice Department which, presumably, would adversely affect Hillary’s ability to win at the convention or in a general election. 

Third, from a constitutional standpoint there is no legal reason for Hillary to withdraw her candidacy before the convention, and Hillary, with the assistance of the media, would draw upon “the court of public opinion” to get elected and to see her through to inauguration in January.  (Note: the Constitution only lists qualifications for a president, not disqualifications; adding ex post facto disqualifiers would be unconstitutional.)

Fourth, since it’s a near certainty that Hillary will not withdraw even if indicted before the convention,  a “brokered convention”  might well ensue which could force her out. Though her delegates are committed to supporting her on the first round of balloting, the 712 super delegates could easily bolt and rally around another candidate if they felt the chances of her election had been seriously jeopardized. Party loyalty could well trump loyalty to Hillary.

Fifth, if Hillary is indicted, there is no constitutional requirement for her to withdraw. Period.

Sixth, if Hillary is indicted, wins the general election and delays the trial until after inauguration in January, per Art II Sec 4 only impeachment by a majority in the House and conviction by 2/3 vote in the Senate can remove her from office. (Note: an indictable offense is not necessarily an impeachable offense; impeachment is a political process.) And if she’s not convicted by the Senate, which is the most likely scenario, Hillary skates free—at least while she’s president. If she leaves office before the 5-year statute of limitation which begins ticking from date of indictment is met--in other words, she’s not elected to a second term--she can still be tried. (Note: for terrorism and financial crimes the statute of limitations is 8 and 10 years respectively.)

Seventh, a sitting president can order the AG to drop all charges, or to not either pursue prosecution or to enforce any sentence imposed. Such an action would surely place into question her constitutional responsibility to “faithfully execute the laws” of the United States and would be, therefore, an impeachable offense.

Eighth, since there is no limit on a president’s pardoning authority, but as no president or governor has ever attempted to pardon himself/herself in the past, Hillary’s pardoning herself would be unprecedented and could easily be construed by the public and Congress as morally—not legally—reprehensible.  The repugnancy of a self-pardon might well be sufficient for an otherwise reluctant Congress to impeach, try and remove her  from office.

Conclusions: my guess is that a narcissistic Hillary Clinton would be more than willing to put the country through the wringer to achieve political power--public interest, traditional standards of rectitude and moral conduct be damned.

If nothing else, these unseemly developments should spark renewed interest in an Art V Convention of States to tighten up qualifications for presidential candidates, to say nothing of limiting the constitutional authority of an increasingly imperial Executive Branch. These unprecedented developments should also both incur the moral outrage of the People and encourage individual States to  review their election standards as well.

If the charges are as substantive, well-founded and egregious as many on both the left and right agree they are, and if 1) Hillary wins the general election and, 2)  Congress abdicates is constitutional responsibility to impeach and remove her from office, then all bets are off as to the survivability of this once venerable constitutional republic. If massive marches on the White House to force her resignation are not attempted or don't succeed, then secession or rebellion can be Americans' only salvation.

Opinerlog.blogspot.com

POSTSCRIPT: Well, the suspense is over. Today, Director Comey announced that he will not recommend criminal charges, observing only that Hillary was "extremely careless" and alluding to a potential misdemeanor offense if Justice is willing to got that route. While I respect Mr. Comey's judgement and even-handedness, his description of her handling of classified material as "extremely careless" is a perfect description of what Hillary is all about, from Emailgate, pay-to-play Clinton Foundation, to Benghazigate, to Whitewater. I'm sure she and her hubby are deliriously happy and relieved, as are her flipper-flapping loyalists. Let the Clinton faux indignation and painful spinning begin. Wretch...

A Powerful Judiciary is the Very Definition of Tyranny

For decades now, the Chief Executive, the Supreme Court and the mammoth unaccountable federal bureaucracy have been operating FAR FAR outside the Constitution, and too many folks just don't seem to get it or, worse, don't c-a-r-e. 

By our silence and routine submission to this endless stream of lawlessness we, in effect, further weaken the Constitution and jeopardize those safeguards which it embodies. 

The Chief Executive and the Judiciary MUST be reined in by Congress, failing which it is up to the States, per their 10th Amendment authority, to defy and nullify these non-stop encroachments on our liberty and the Rule of Law. 

When it comes to the point that the strongest argument for supporting a GOP presidential candidate is to ensure that only "conservative" judges are appointed to fill court vacancies, shouldn't it then occur to us that by our merely asserting this argument exposes  the awful truth that we have simply delegated  far too much authority in the judiciary--FAR more authority than our Founders ever intended or could have ever envisioned. 

When voters fear the appointment of either conservatives or liberals to the court, we are exposing our total ignorance of the constitutional role and limitations of the judiciary by our having accepted the wholly heretical notion that this judicial monster which now dominates our political system is the ultimate authority on legal, political and social issues. After all, don't these omniscient jurists obtain their infallible judgement and wisdom from God? Well, that is most certainly how most Americans view these black-robed oligarchs.

To checkmate judicial tyranny, the Constitution delegated to Congress the sacred duty to carefully vet federal judicial appointments to ensure that they are reliably committed to upholding the Rule of Law and the U.S. Constitution as originally ratified, failing which it is the constitutional duty of Congress to immediately impeach and remove any federal judge who violates that trust, be s/he Democrat or Republican, liberal or conservative.

In short, the proximate cause for the relentless stream of lawless, unconstitutional judicial rulings is FIRST faithless, agenda-driven judges and SECOND an unprincipled, spineless Congress unwilling to exercise its constitutional authority to impeach and remove demonstrably faithless judges.

The fault also lies with the States which routinely submit to judicial imperialism with but a faint whisper of objection. Per the 9th and 10th Amendments, States are absolutely  empowered to render null and void any unconstitutional acts, not only of the federal court system, but also of the Chief Executive, the Congress and the fourth branch of government, the latter being that suffocatingly lawless federal bureaucracy which now routinely operates outside the Constitution.

So, why doesn't Congress impeach, and why do the States fail to protect their citizens from the blizzard of federal encroachments? In the case of our timid Congress, it is our reps' propensity for self-aggrandizement, ideological accommodation and political survival. In the case of the States, it is the mountains of federal hand-outs they receive for their submissiveness. In short, MONEY and POLITICAL SELF-INTEREST drive this government--not bedrock constitutional principles. 

By original design, the States and Congress are the People's principal defenders of our rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. BUT it is the People who must ensure that our Founders' clear meaning and intentions are no longer ignored or flouted by local, State or federal apparatchiks. Thus, the ball is in our court. But, alas, what will we do with that ball? Kick it down the road again, or simply pretend it's not there.

As the ultimate arbiters of what is and is not constitutional, We, the creators of this federal constitutional republic, continue to ignore and dodge our responsibilities in this regard at our own peril. 

Finally, I urge readers to join and support the Article V Convention of States whose sacred task it is to restore constitutional order, the ultimate guarantor of our Liberty. I also urge thoughtful readers to join and support the Tenth Amendment Center whose herculean efforts to restore the balance of power between States and the federal government has been nothing short of stellar.


("Seemingly guided by Chief Justice Hughes's arrogant and insidious assertion in 1941 that 'we are under a Constitution, bu the Constitution is what the judges say it is', the court's unelected judicial oligarchs, aka judicial legislators, have, over the years, proven to be unreliable defenders of the Constitution." Author)

("The accumulation of all powers, legislative, executive, and judiciary, in the same hands, whether of one, a few, or many, and whether hereditary, self-appointed, or elective, may justly be pronounced the very definition of tyranny. James Madison, Federalist #47)

TRUMP Should Hit Liberal Racism Without Fabricating "Racial Virtues" of Lincoln

In an excellent article today entitled "Trump Vows to Fight Democrat Racism, Sexism", Breitbart News reports that Trump intends to expose Democrats' notorious history of racism and sexism. FINALLY!

But, in the article the writer alludes to the misnamed "civil war" and Abraham Lincoln as stellar examples of Republicans' historical purity on this issue.

In the comments section I entered the following:

 "Good article, but PLEASE PLEASE get beyond the prevailing and wholly erroneous revisionist belief that 'ole Abraham Lincoln fought the so-called "civil war", aka War of Northern Aggression or War for Southern Independence, to free the blacks.UNMITIGATED HOGWASH! 

Like most of his contemporaries in the North, Abe was a shameless white supremacist who tore the country apart for his own political and economic purposes. He ain't no hero of mine, nor should he be to any clear-headed American anywhere.

That said, glad Trump is turning these issues back on the Liberals whose history in these areas has been notorious! About time a GOP candidate is willing to tell it like it is, to tangle with the devil, to fight fire with fire!"

For starters, I urge truth-seekers to read a scholarly and extremely well-documented book entitled "The Real Abe Lincoln". Sobering and educational to say the least, the book should remind us that it is always the victor in war who writes the history of that conflict, calculatingly skewed, tendentious and revisionist though that account may be.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

(“If anybody tries to penetrate the past with the knife of the present will always act in vain. The past is invulnerable. Such attempts can only cause the present or the future to bleed." - Gregor Brand”
― Simon Schwartz)

(“Until the lions have their own historians, the history of the hunt will always glorify the hunter.”― Chinua Achebe)

Hillary Reflects What Too Many Americans Have Become: Unprincipled Dolts

On Politico, the headline read "Clinton Aide: Reporters don't ask questions voters care about." 

This, of course, was Hillary's dismissive attempt to quash reporters' insistence that she has been anything but accessible and open to questions. Well, there are reasons for her lack of openness and engagement with the press--and all but the willfully ignorant and Party-first loyalists among us are painfully aware of those insidious reasons.

For me anyway, the headline of the story says it all: "reporters don't ask questions voters care about."

Though cynically defensive and obviously self-serving on Hillary's part, the terrible truth is that at least 50% of American voters genuinely DO NOT CARE IF HILLARY IS A PATHOLOGICAL LIAR, PSYCHOLOGICALLY DISABLED, AND, SO FAR, AN UNINDICTED FELON, and so many other voters are either ignorant or totally disengaged. And therein lies our sorry fate as a constitutional republic of laws.

If so many Americans "don't care" about the character of the people who represent them, then Americans are unworthy of constitutional governance and individual freedoms and will, by their own dereliction and depravity, forfeit the blessings of Liberty and constitutional Rule of Law for themselves and their posterity.

As a constitutional republic we are now as close to self-destruction as we've ever been! But, let there be no mistake: Hillary is but a symptom of our depravity and suicidal proclivities; the 50+% are the root cause.

It is not easy to see a good or peaceful end to this national crisis. With a Hillary presidency, widespread turmoil, civil disobedience and, yes, dissolution of this once venerable union of States would no longer be the stuff of idle speculation. My guess is that Hillary's ascendancy to the White House would surely stiffen patriotic resolve and resistance.

Unless legally prevented from assuming office in January 2017, political and societal upheavel and political disunion are most likely inevitable. 

Despite his obvious shortcomings, with Trump, untried but a patriot, we would still have something of a chance to hold it all together for a while longer...or at least until we as a people can summon the courage and clarity to restore a virtuous society, constitutional order and the rule of law.

No Pollyanna I. Semper paratus. 

"Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other." John Adams

"When injustice becomes law, resistance becomes duty." Thomas Jefferson

"The further a society drifts from the truth, the more it will hate those who speak it." George Orwell

Leftist Bullies & America's Future

Amidst the presidential campaign maelstrom, the relentless Progressive violations of our liberties, traditional values, religious freedom, free enterprise, and constitutional underpinnings continue. Now this:

Until I recently read about the 16 Attorneys General--all Progressives, of course--who are promising to target any company that challenges Liberalism's climate change RELIGION, I honestly thought I was beyond being shocked by the Left's propensity for tyranny and bullying.

Reminiscent of the excesses of the Spanish Inquisition of 1478, these fascist high priests intend to vigorously pursue corporate "climate change deniers" to the "fullest extent of the law"--whatever contrived law that might be.

Asserting that "climate change deniers" are committing "fraud" and are, therefore, unprotected by that pesky First Amendment, these modern-day inquisitors--New York State's AG Schneiderman being among them--plan to impose huge fines against anyone who declines to blindly submit to their scientifically unproven man-made global warming religious dogma. ("I am the Lord thy God; thou shalt have no other gods before me." Schneiderman and his co-collaborators have clearly forgotten this divine admonition.)

This undisguised attempt to stifle core political speech and vigorous SCIENTIFIC debate should be roundly condemned by all Americans! AG Schneiderman, among other inquisitors, should not only apologize for his loathsome thuggery; he should either resign or be removed from office.

Is it any wonder the citizens of this deeply divided country are in the throes of despair, uncertainty and anger? Is it any wonder that desperate Americans are turning to "outsiders" like Donald Trump? Is it any wonder that secessionist movements, most notably the Texas Nationalist Movement, are gaining in strength, support and determination?

Make no mistake, folks. Our Founders would NEVER EVER have tolerated the tyranny which now assails us at every turn and from every direction. To a man, they would have full-throatedly counseled civil disobedience, State nullification and, if all else fails, either secession or outright rebellion.

And this: NOTHING--absolutely NOTHING--the British did to Americans in the 18th century which convinced American colonists to secede from England can in any way compare to the awful intensity of today's Progressive assault on our unalienable rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. And in this terrible light, is it really a stretch to reasonably suggest that this union of sovereign States (as originally conceived anyway) has, in fact, finally outlived its usefulness. (Personally, I believe that our societal, political and economic problems are now so severe and so embedded as to be effectively irremediable. No Pollyanna I.)

So, we can either continue to submit to or otherwise accommodate the intolerable, or we can exercise our unalienable rights to appropriately resist. In any event, I urge all patriots to look solemnly to our Founders for wisdom and direction in these extremely troubling times. And remember this: unalienable rights are unalienable only to the extent we are determined to defend them.

("The chasm between conservatives and liberals grows wider by the day. We live in a house divided. This profound difference between people on the Right and Left will have to be managed with diligence if our country is not to fragment and fall apart. Great leadership will be required. This, not income inequality, is the moral issue of our time." Ed Klein, Writer/Reporter, 2015)

("Given that the rise of Sanders theatens to extirpate the last vestiges of classical liberalism in the Democratic Party, there has never been a time in my life when limited and accountable government in the United States is under greater threat...classical liberalism will continue to decline." John O. McGinnis, Writer and Professor of Constitutional Law, Northwestern University, 2016)

("...any people, anywhere, being inclined and having the power, have the right to rise up and shake off the existing government, and form a new one that suits them better." Congressman Abraham Lincoln on the floor of Congress, 1847)

("Whenever the people shall grow weary of the existing government, they can exercise their constitutional right of amending it or their revolutionary right to dismember or overthrow it." Pres. Abraham Lincoln, Inaugural Address, 1861)

AN APPEAL FOR SANITY & NATIONAL SURVIVAL

TO THOSE OF YOU WHO SAY WE SHOULDNT SUPPORT CRUZ BECAUSE HE IS INELIGIBLE, this:

I am fully aware of the thoughtful and well-meaning constitutional arguments on both sides of this issue, and I personally and objectively believe that, like Rubio, Chester A. Arthur and Jindal, Ted Cruz is very likely constitutionally ineligible.

That said, however, and faced with the awful prospect of either a felonious Alinskyite (Hillary) or a totally ideologically unknown loose cannon usurping the White House next January, I’ve taken the desperate position that “extremism in defense of liberty is no vice” (Goldwater); thus, with that justification in mind, I am necessarily supporting Cruz who, except for his arguably being on the wrong side of the eligibility issue, is a demonstrably constitution-first guy we can clearly count on to restore constitutional order. And since the entrenched political class, nearly to a man, loathes Cruz, does that not demonstrate his credibility as an "outsider" and a fearless defender of our republic? And isn’t that precisely what our greater patriotic purpose should be?

Therefore, I URGE all patriots who champion a return to constitutional order and first principles to support Cruz both financially and on the ground as volunteers.

Think about it: nothing less than the survival of what precious little remains of our constitutional republic is at stake. In that light, waxing philosophically over the issue of eligibility seems a tad inappropriate and misdirected.

Dare we permit the election of either Donald or Hillary? Hillary is the devil we know; Donald is the potential devil we don't really know at all.

Please jettison the blinders and temper your justifiable anger long enough to successfully get this nation through these primaries and the general election in November. Get behind Ted Cruz!!! I beg you!!! See beyond your anger and disillusionment. This could well be our last chance to get it right.We simply cannot risk blowing it again.

Can the Voter Revolution be Stopped?

The current "grassroots revolution" is visceral, real and a very long time in coming. But, now it's here, and the elites are pulling all stops to extinguish the anger, quell the unwashed masses, protect their privilege. But it won't work this time. The genie is out of the bottle and this justifiable revolution will not be extinguished, tempered, demoralized.

Only time will tell if the rise of Trumpism will remedy our woes. But, right now--and unless Hillary, the felonious Alinskyite on the Left, manages to squeak out a victory in November--it appears that Trumpism as a political solution, for better or for worse, will have to play itself out. At this historical juncture, there appears to be no other peaceful, viable recourse.

Intensely interesting and profoundly unsettling times. Let's hope what precious little remains of our republic survives this maelstrom.

And this concluding remark: we are no longer a nation of laws firmly moored to foundational principles. Unmoored and floundering, for the immediate future our fate as a unified nation remains in the hands of those entrenched political elites who have so recklessly launched us upon this dangerous course. Where it all ends is anybody's guess. As for me, I'm predicting growing very civil tumult and, eventually, disunion.