MUST WATCH! Video editing of seisures by Hillary
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ltlhBW3eoZk
The sad fact is that even if the people who will vote for that woman bothered to watch it or the many similar ones they would still ignore the facts and vote for her.
She will win because so many want to be able to say that they voted for the first woman P.O.T.U.S. never mind what her policies are. Does anyone know for sure what
they actually are by the way???
Another interesting link with many stories about her are at:-
http://www.allenbwest.com/allen/it-ends-here
Quote from: Just Looking on November 02, 2016, 09:37:14 PMDoes anyone know for sure whatthey actually are by the way???
Well she is spending billions on anti trump ads on TV but not ONE DIME on her accomplisments (maybe because she has none :P )
There are several youtube videos of HER OWN SPEECHES that clearly show she is ITCHING to start a war with Russia and Iran, coming right out and saying Nukes are definitely on the table
Your right though Hillary supporters don't give a damn about the end of America so long as they can put a 'woman' in as potus And I am going to lay odds right now that they will be the first to whine when the SHTF and we are facing WWIII
I have just had the following e-mail from a friend in the U.S. who has been concerned that even if Donald was elected his threat of putting Clinton in a Law Court couldn't happen because:-
"Interesting conjectured article, but based on obama's aggressive campaigning for hillary, and Trump's promise to have her indicted if he becomes president, I think it is very plausible conjecture. I copied a paragraph from the "Heritage guide to the Constitution" regarding PARDON POWER to in fact show that it is plausible":
The scope of the pardon power remains quite broad, almost plenary. As Justice Stephen Field wrote in Ex parte Garland (1867), "If granted before conviction, it prevents any of the penalties and disabilities consequent upon conviction from attaching [thereto]; if granted after conviction, it removes the penalties and disabilities, and restores him to all his civil rights; it makes him, as it were, a new man, and gives him a new credit and capacity....A pardon reaches both the punishment prescribed for the offence and the guilt of the offender....so that in the eye of the law the offender is as innocent as if he had never committed the offence." A pardon is valid whether accepted or not, because its purposes are primarily public. It is an official act. According to United States v. Klein (1871), Congress cannot limit the President's grant of an amnesty or pardon, but it can grant other or further amnesties itself. Though pardons have been litigated, the Court has consistently refused to limit the President's discretion. Chief Justice Warren E. Burger, however, in Schick v. Reed (1974), seemed to limit the Court's restraint to pardons under "conditions which do not in themselves offend the Constitution."
www.heritage.org/constitution/#!/articles/2/essays/89/pardon-power