The Clintons Are Not Above the Law: Justice Must Be Served


What message does it send to the American people when they see criminals being let off because of their connections, wealth and social standing; knowing full well that others who might commit such crimes would be indicted and incarcerated?

Don’t get me wrong, I am rooting for President-elect Donald Trump to be a successful president. I want to see him put America back together after Obama disassembled this country on so many levels. I want to see an end to the violence and the gunning down of our brave police officers. I want our border to be shored up. I want Roe Vs Wade to be struck down by a Conservative SCOTUS.

There are many things which need fixing in America.  Obama was the lawless president. He cared not for the rule of law nor did he care for our Constitution.  But is Donald Trump going to begin his presidency by turning a blind eye to the crimes committed by the Clintons in their Foundation?  Can he just wink at the “Pay to play” between the Clinton Foundation and Saudi Arabia and Qatar, where millions of dollars poured into that phony institution from countries who also funded terrorism worldwide – while Hillary Clinton was the Secretary of State?

Perhaps Trump is not showing his hand

Donald Trump is a very smart man. It could be that he is diverting attention away from the Clinton Foundation scandal for now. After he is sworn in on January 20th,  his Attorney General and the Justice Department could open the case against the Clintons. I believe that not making good on his promise to investigate the Foundation will not sit right with the general public.  These people are not above the law.


Ashcroft: Clinton Can Still Be Prosecuted Against Trump’s Wishes

Even though President-elect Donald Trump no longer wants to pursue prosecution against Hillary Clinton for either her private email server or for activities surrounding the Clinton Foundation, that doesn’t mean her legal woes are over, former Attorney General John Ashcroft said Tuesday.

“I would hasten to mention though that it’s pretty well-known that there are a number of other investigations regarding the Clinton Foundation,” Ashcroft, who served under President George W. Bush, told Fox News’ “America’s Newsroom” co-host Bill Hemmer.

“I don’t think that what the president-elect has said would foreclose following those investigations to an appropriate conclusion,” he continued, “and if they found that there was some sort of a prosecution or legal action that was merited there, I don’t think that what has been said today would foreclose action on those issues.”

Earlier on Tuesday, Trump senior adviser Kellyanne Conway confirmed an MSNBC “Morning Joe” report that Trump wouldn’t pursue the prosecution, following months of telling supporters at rallies he would do just that, leading to the often repeated chant of “lock her up” in response.

“When the president-elect tells you he doesn’t wish to pursue the charges, it sends a strong message,” Conway told the program. “He’s thinking of many different things as he prepares to become the president of the United States, and things that sound like the campaign are not among them.”

Trump himself also addressed the report during a meeting with reporters and editors at The New York Times Tuesday afternoon, commenting that he doesn’t “want to hurt the Clintons, I really don’t. She went through a lot and suffered greatly in many different ways.”

Ashcroft also on Tuesday commented on the choice of Alabama Sen. Jeff Sessions for attorney general, saying that he will “support the rule of law and to do it equally for all citizens.”

“Well he does it by enforcing the law equitably and equally, for all citizens and he doesn’t pick and choose between categories of law with which the administration might not be pleased,” said Ashcroft. “We accept the law as enacted by the Congress, signed by previous presidents and if the law is to be changed it ought to be changed by the Congress in conjunction with the signature of a president or a veto override of the president.”

President Barack Obama’s executive orders, though, went against that, said Ashcroft, but Sessions does not stand for such suspensions of the rules of law.- source

Hillary and Bill Clinton are criminals and they should be subject to the rule of law, just like any American citizens.  Let us hope and pray that justice is done.  Their corruption is something which needs to be put to rest – behind bars.



A Call To Action: Tell Your Congressmen NO EARLY ADJOURNMENT!


This is truly an emergency!

We were told months ago, that the only way that BHO could appoint a Justice for the SCOTUS would be if Congress was adjourned.  Well, it looks as if they are planning just that!


Danger!  Obama could put Merrick Garland on Supreme Court in December

Last week, I warned that if Congress adjourned for the year too soon, it could open a window to give President Obama a Supreme Court pick. That’s because of a provision of the Constitution that allows the president to make recess appointments that can last two or more years. Now we get word that Congress is planning to adjourn early, which will give Obama an opportunity to appoint Merrick Garland to the Supreme Court.

This discussion is fairly complex, involving both constitutional and statutory law, so bear with me.

1) Why does Congress want to adjourn early? Members of Congress want to adjourn early this year so they can kill last-minute Obama regulations. According to a 1996 law, Congress has 60 legislative days in which to disapprove of presidential regulations. If Obama makes some horrendous last-minute regulations, by ending its session early, Congress has more time to overrule those regulations. That’s why congressional leaders are tentatively planning to adjourn by December 9.

2) What does this have to do with the Supreme Court vacancy? Under Article II, Section 2 of the Constitution:

The President shall have power to fill up all vacancies that may happen during the recess of the Senate, by granting commissions which shall expire at the end of their next session.

Courts have interpreted “recess” to mean a ten or longer-day gap between sessions of the Senate. That means Obama, during the recess, could appoint Merrick Garland to the Supreme Court, since by adjourning for the year on December 9, the Senate will be gone for far longer than ten days.

3) But doesn’t Congress have the power to say whether it is in recess or not? Kind of. In NLRB v. Noel Canning, the Supreme Court said Congress has the power to decide whether it is in recess or not, but only up to a certain point. If Congress does not at least hold pro forma sessions, it cannot say it is in recess (see pages 4-5 of the actual opinion).

4) But wouldn’t an appointment last only until the beginning of January? Note the words of Article II, Section 2 above. Note the word next, as in “not this session, but the next one.” The one that’s going to last for two years. That’s how long Garland would be on the court.

5) But Article II, Section 2 talks about vacancies occurring during a recess. This isn’t the situation here. Not true. The actual “vacancy” does not have to begin during the recess. Only the appointment need occur during the recess. That’s how the Article II, Section 2 has been interpreted:

Presidents have used the Recess Appointments Clause to fill not only vacancies that occur during recesses, but also those that initially arose when the Senate was in session.

6) But couldn’t Congress declare itself in recess for purposes of recess appointments but still hold pro forma sessions? No.

7) You don’t know what you’re talking about! Ryan and McConnell would never be dumb enough to make such a move! Don’t be so sure. Even if they are aware of Article II, Section 2, they may think Obama would never be bold enough to make such an appointment. Why else would they be making plans to give Obama such a window unless they never suspected he would use it?

I’m an attorney. I went to Harvard Law School. I studied constitutional law. I’ve spent years listening to people like Mark Levin, who are experts on constitutional law. Trust me when I tell you that this is a potential problem.

If Congress does recess on December 9 without coming back, Obama can appoint Garland to the Supreme Court. We could be in for two years of a solid leftist Supreme Court unless someone on Capitol Hill shows some common sense. –source

URGENT:  Call your Congressman and demand that Congress NOT adjourn early in December!

United States House of Representatives and phone numbers

We are almost there, brethren.  Let’s not allow this lawless president to further damage our government!