Protecting Hillary Clinton – Supreme Court Rules 8-0 To Nullify Virginia Governor Bob McDonnell Conviction…

You won’t see this in the MSM headline news of the day’s events because it cuts directly against their preferred narrative.

The Supreme Court ruled 8-0 today to nullify the federal conviction of former Virginia Governor Bob McConnell on bribery and corruption charges (full ruling pdf below).  8 to 0, the entire court agreed, the conviction was politically motivated and not grounded in law.

Why?  Why did every justice agree, even the liberal justices? ….and they went one step further in ordering the lower courts to reconsider whether the government’s evidence of corruption is strong enough to even try him again.  If not, the charges against him must be dismissed, according to the ruling.

Bob and Maureen McDonnellHillary-Afghanistan

The why is really quite simple.  If you’ve ever heard James Carville or any Clinton spokesperson talk about the book “Clinton Cash“, you’ll see quickly what was at stake.

The case against Bob McDonnell was based on him accepting gifts while an elected public official.  Accepting gifts and/or donations itself is not illegal.  Does it look untoward, unsavory or tawdry, yes.  But if the official (recipient) takes no substantive action to benefit the contributor, meaning there is no quid-pro-quo, then no laws have been broken.

Contributions are only bribery when the official takes an official action, as part of their public office, to the benefit of the person providing the contribution, that would not have been taken to the benefit of any other similar request that does not contain a contribution.

In essence McDonnell and his wife took gifts, but the federal prosecutors could not identify any specific action that was taken to the substantive benefit of the donor, that McDonnell had not also taken to the benefit of other constituents who did not provide gifts or donations.

Also, SCOTUS warns, correctly and appropriately, that federal prosecutors applying liberally-defined ideological definitions of an elected official “taking action” directly undermines the entire concept of representative government.

Politicians are expected to advocate on behalf of their constituents needs, and in this case McDonnell took no action that would be out-of-bounds of the normal advocacy anticipated from any elected official.

The entire prosecution of McDonnell was politically motivated by federal prosecutors who could not evidence any quid-pro-quo of action McDonnell took on behalf of the donor who gave him lavish gifts.

Even the four liberal justices recognized this fundamental flaw of prosecutorial logic in the government’s case.  But there’s a larger issue; a larger contrasting issue.

If Governor McDonnell was factually guilty of the accusations, as presented by the federal prosecution, then what does that say about the EXTREME gifts and payments that Hillary Clinton and the Clinton Foundation were given by foreign governments while she was Secretary of State.

See the issue?

President Obama, Officials Attend 9/11 Memorial Museum Opening Ceremony

Hillary Clinton took -by a magnitude of thousands- more contributions, donations, and gifts than McConnell ever conceived of.  The defense of those contributions and donations by the Clinton advocates has been very specific.  They claim Clinton took no official action on behalf of those who gave her gifts, donations and contributions.

If McDonnell was to have been guilty by the definitions applied by federal prosecutors, then Hillary Clinton was guilty by an exponential magnitude for all of the lavish indulgences presented to her during her tenure  as Secretary of State.

That’s why the decision today was 8-0 to nullify the lower court ruling.

Here’s the decision:

Analysis by SCOTUS Blog:

[…] The government, the opinion noted, retains under the Court’s new interpretation of corruption “ample room” for prosecution of elected officials who are charged with taking money and gifts for performing some “official act.”  The decision explicitly refused the ex-governor’s plea to strike down, as too vague, the basic bribery and extortion laws under which he  was convicted.  But by a sharp cutback of what kind of “official act” will be treated as corrupt when done in return for money or gifts, the new ruling poses a major challenge to prosecutors seeking to police official misconduct.

Federal prosecutors had successfully argued, at McDonnell’s trial and in reaction to his appeal, that doing an “official act” in return for gratuities meant “nearly any activity by a public official.”

Insisting that such a sweeping interpretation not only did not square with the text of the criminal laws at issue, but also raised constitutional questions, the Court took several paragraphs to spell out what is, or is not, the kind of “official act” that will expose an official to charges of corruption.

First, the Court said that the kind of government activity that had to be involved was something akin to a lawsuit, a court proceeding, or some other explicit official activity.  Holding a typical meeting, making a call, or arranging an event, when done by an elected official, does not cross the line, the opinion declared.  The matter that a constituent seeks to have influenced by the official, the opinion said, must be an agency proceeding that is “specific and focused.”

Second, the elected official’s move to do a favor regarding such a matter, the Court said, must be an explicit attempt to influence, or coerce another official to influence, the outcome of such a proceeding.  Here is the way the Court phrased that point:

“Setting up a meeting, hosting an event, or calling an official (or agreeing to do so) merely to talk about a research study or to gather additional information…does not qualify as a decision or action on the pending question” of whether a government agency should take an explicit action in favor of a constituent.

The Chief Justice made clear that the decision was driven in considerable part by the Court’s worry that the way McDonnell’s case unfolded — from the prosecutors’ bold charges — was a threat to the way representative government normally works.  “The basic compact underlying representative government,” he wrote, “assumes that public officials will hear from their constituents and act appropriately on their concerns…The government’s position could cast a pall of potential prosecution over these relationships” if the constituents had made a campaign contribution or made a modest gesture of entertainment or an outing such as a ball game.  (more)

This entry was posted in 1st Amendment, A New America, Big Government, Big Stupid Government, Clinton(s), Conspiracy ?, Dem Hypocrisy, Dept Of Justice, Election 2016, media bias, Supreme Court, Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

173 Responses to Protecting Hillary Clinton – Supreme Court Rules 8-0 To Nullify Virginia Governor Bob McDonnell Conviction…

  1. Bull Durham says:

    Of course, first thing that came to mind was this finishes the Corruption case against the Clintons.
    That’s all it’s about. The courts did their sworn duty to protect the corrupt class ruling the tyranny.

    Hang them all!

    You can only hope some act of nature mets out justice to these pigs.

    Liked by 19 people

    • Sandra-VA says:

      Nothing to do with the Clinton crimes at all. There are corruption cases all over the Country right now… and many of them are just like her crimes, on a smaller scale… and they are being convicted.

      This case was a blatant political murder of a man’s reputation. It was absolutely right for the SC to vacate the conviction.

      Liked by 12 people

      • Ted Koehl says:

        I agree. The case against former governor Bob McDonnell was purely political strategy to take him out as a benefit to Ken Cuccinelli who ran for governor against fast Terry McCauliff who won; and to destroy McDonnell’s popularity in a head to head race against the re-election of the very limp Senator Mark Warner who never saw an Obama policy he did not like. Warner also won.

        McDonnell’s reputation and essential political connections were destroyed by the feckless prosecution. McDonnell did not violate any of the laws of Virginia and actually had a pretty good record as governor. There is no level the Democrat Socialists will not stoop to in order to crush their opposition. They are excellent totalitarians!

        Liked by 12 people

        • Josh says:

          Agree and agree Sandra-VA and Ted Koehl.

          Liked by 1 person

        • John Galt says:

          McDonnell destroyed his own reputation and should be under the jail.

          “Six months later, Governor McDonnell’s wife, Maureen McDonnell, offered to seat Williams next to the Governor at a political rally. Shortly before the event, Williams took Mrs. McDonnell on a shopping trip and bought her$20,000 worth of designer clothing. The McDonnells later had Williams over for dinner at the Governor’s Mansion, where they discussed research studies on Anatabloc.”

          “Two days after that dinner, Williams had an article about Star Scientific’s research e-mailed to Mrs. McDonnell, which she forwarded to her husband. Less than an hour later, Governor McDonnell texted his sister to dis-cuss the financial situation of certain rental properties they owned in Virginia Beach. Governor McDonnell also e-mailed his daughter to ask about expenses for her up-coming wedding. The next day, Williams returned to the Governor’s Mansion for a meeting with Mrs. McDonnell. At the meeting, Mrs. McDonnell described the family’s financial problems, including their struggling rental properties in Virginia Beach and their daughter’s wedding expenses.”

          “Mrs. McDonnell, who had experience selling nutritional supplements, told Williams that she had a background in the area and could help him with Anatabloc. According to Williams, she explained that the “Governor says it’s okay for me to help you and—but I need you to help me. I need you to help me with this financial situation.”
          Id., at 2231. Mrs. McDonnell then asked Williams for a $50,000 loan, in addition to a $15,000 gift to help pay for her daughter’s wedding, and Williams agreed. Williams testified that he called Governor McDonnell after the meeting and said, “I understand the financial problems and I’m willing to help. I just wanted to make sure that you knew about this.”Id., at 2233. According to Williams, Governor McDonnell thanked him for his help.”

          http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/07/31/bob-mcdonnell-gifts_n_5638825.html

          “RICHMOND, Va., July 31 (Reuters) – The businessman who, federal prosecutors say, gave gifts and loans to former Virginia Governor Robert McDonnell and his wife said Thursday he kept the largesse secret because he knew he was giving bribes to help his diet-supplements company.”

          “Williams has been granted immunity in exchange for his testimony.”

          Liked by 1 person

          • Jett Black says:

            Yep, not a single official act by McDonnell in Williams’ favor–just letting his wife make some hay out of her non-governmental position and experience marketing supplements. That isn’t bribery. It may be shoddy business and weak character on Williams’ part in caving in to a political crucifixion for immunity from prosecution for crimes he actually committed or from prosecution for these acts that aren’t crimes (i.e., sold his soul for comfort and convenience), but McDonnell is only guilty of foolishness, not a crime.

            Liked by 3 people

          • maiingankwe says:

            John Galt,
            When I read what you shared with us, I first thought, oh yeah, guilty as sin, and then I thought, wait a minute, the Gov didn’t do anything but accept the gifts and agree to his wife in helping him. He didn’t use his office or standing to help Williams and his business. Right?

            I think it was wrong to have asked for a loan and to help with the wedding, it was certainly done in poor taste, but for the prosecutors to chase and ruin him like they did was even worse. Especially since they could not prove the Gov did anything but show a lack of character. If that was against the law, our courts and prisons would be even more bogged down and full.

            I am not well read when it comes to this case since I haven’t followed it closely, so I could certainly be missing something. Thankfully this is only a comment section, and my word or assessment is not written in stone, it is fluid and can easily change when I’ve completed the Scribed, and all what it entails from our Supreme Court’ ruling.

            By the way, is anyone able to read it for free, or do you have to pay for it to get it to open up? I’m having difficulties navigating it on my phone.

            Liked by 1 person

          • law4lifeblog says:

            McDonnell is only guilty if being really stupid and even tacky….but a crime requires a quid pro quo…..there’s quid here, but no quo. Good SCOTUS decision.

            Like

        • cjzak says:

          Totally agree. However, no matter what comes out about the Clintons and Hillary in particular, they will be protected by the establishment and the media. We the people have to do the job our leadership refuses to do. Vote Trump people.

          Like

        • PatriotKate says:

          Not to mention that McDonnell had presidential aspirations. The Clinton’s and Bushes are both good at preemptively taking out their competition.

          Like

      • John Galt says:

        “This case was a blatant political murder of a man’s reputation. It was absolutely right for the SC to vacate the conviction.”

        Nonsense. The facts as set forth in the SCOTUS opinion constitute an incredibly blatant case of corruption and bribery.

        Liked by 3 people

        • bocephus0h says:

          I agree, this is a kangaroo court in action now.

          Liked by 1 person

        • law4lifeblog says:

          No, it’s not criminal corruption or bribery as defined by law at the time …and that’s what matters.

          Liked by 1 person

        • ladypenquin says:

          Not under Virginia law at the time. And it is also clear from the facts, that no quid quo pro was given. It’s also believed, with reasonable logic and knowledge, that the 3rd party guy who ran was financed by the Dems to get on the ballot. He took 6-7% of the vote, unheard of in VA. Ron Paul would have been the only one who could have had that.

          They had to indict under the Feds. It was a case of a witch hunt set up for McDonnell. Not any different from the way George Zimmerman became a case the DOJ was looking for to set up the racist meme they needed for 2012 election base turnout. BLM is now that legacy. And so is Ferguson, Baltimore, Baltimore, and Baltimore.

          As long as the Fascists Democrats are running the country, the DOJ, FBI, DEA, etc. all prosecutions are going to be against Republicans, conservatives. I expect the Democrats to have nothing go against them. But neither do I believe the SCOTUS was doing this to set the stage for Hillary. She has high crimes against her…

          No one was taking the 5th in McDonnell’s prosecution.

          Like

      • tgmccoy says:

        The Clinton case is about National Security- and the abuse of power. Malfeasance, corruption, are just a part of her portfolio. I don’t think this absolves her of anything.
        Case hasn’t even been tried-yet…

        Liked by 6 people

      • ladypenquin says:

        As a Virginian, I concur. I knew Bob McDonnell personally. He was, and is a good man. The Democrats targeted him as he was a rising star in the Republican Party and could have conceivably run for the presidency at some point. Yes, his wife (and it was more her than him) took gifts, but as it’s clear he never did it as a quid pro quo.

        BTW, Virginia did not have any laws against the taking of gifts, so the Dems had to resort to federal law to indict him. Like making “civil rights’ violations” a federal crime to they can catch someone in the racist net, if the locality doesn’t do it for them.

        Liked by 6 people

        • maiingankwe says:

          Lady Penguin,
          Thank you for your insight. It really makes a difference when someone can call on a person’s character from their personal experiences with them. I am truly sorry he and his family had to go through this.

          It is truly sad when the opposition party is so threatened by a person they find it necessary to destroy the person, their family and future. How they sleep at night is beyond me.
          Thank you for sharing,
          Ma’iingankwe

          Liked by 2 people

          • ladypenquin says:

            Appreciate your thoughts. It was a travesty what happened. Many believe the Dems set it up. The guy and his company never got one thing for his “gifts.” The wife was vulnerable.

            But by knocking out McDonnell and his legacy, and tainting the Republican brand – which we’ve let them do for decades – they were able to get Hillary’s bagman, McAuliffe, in there. Her bagman! Who we “know” has slime all over him. The other dirty deed the Dems did in Virginia that year, was to get a third party guy on the ticket – who ran as a libertarian, but was financed by the Dems. They’ve proven he had $$ help from a Texas Dem money guy. Otherwise, there was no way he could have financed getting on the ballot. He got 6-7% of the vote, not something ordinarily done here.

            People in office are constantly assaulted and being worked on to be seduced. Your enemies work extra hard, and the Democrats are exceptional at it. The Republicans are also exceptional at letting them do it and not fighting in return.

            Like

      • CountryClassVulgarian says:

        Agree completely. This was a political assassination pure and simple. There was no evidence of corruption. Bob and Maureen McDonnell are guilty of stupidity and nothing else.

        Liked by 3 people

    • Hanging them all would be natural, and Constitutional. How long are we going to let these globalist puppets redefine the original Constitution OF These united states??? The penalty for treason isn’t jail…

      Liked by 1 person

    • well, seems this one cuts both ways. the decision concedes that political motivation – not legal transgressions – drove the prosecutors and, by extension the judges in both the original trial and the appeal.
      this cases finds that political predujice exists on the bench and is illegal.
      that is exactly trump’s argument against the la raza anchor baby judge and his political vigilantism.
      and don’t worry – hillary will go to jail. 20% of our uranium assets defines the public & national interest.

      Liked by 6 people

    • farmhand1927 says:

      Obama says the SCOTUS ruling against him on amnesty will be ignored. Somehow, this particular ruling will stand since it sets precedent to protect govt employees. Not only does it aid Hillary, at some point it’ll probably bail Obama out, too.

      Don’t we wish when our monthly bills arrive we could just disregard ones we don’t like or we could pick and choose which laws we want to follow and which to ignore? And they wonder why we call them the Ruling Class.

      Liked by 2 people

      • R-C says:

        Selective enforcement of the law, yet again.

        Liked by 1 person

        • ladypenquin says:

          For Obama it was always about him becoming “king” as he said he “won.”

          In my lifetime, I’ve never seen anything like this. My husband and I were talking about how it’s the drastic shift Left of the culture, achieved by the Left, which created the environment for lawlessness, selective law enforcement against anyone perceived as an enemy of the State, the corruption of the judiciary, and the power grab by the president – not just the pathetic phrase of “overreach.”

          Liked by 1 person

    • Howie says:

      The government is 100% corrupt. 100%.

      Liked by 1 person

    • maxx power says:

      This SC ruling has no effect on clinton. Her crimes are of course, magnitudes greater than McDonnell, AND there is ample proof of quid pro quo. Others have been easily convicted of similar crimes as clinton, but of lesser scale. McDonnell didn’t breach national security, she did. McDonnell didn’t set up a Trojan server to allow foreign governments access to top secret information, clinton did. This ruling won’t save clinton.

      Liked by 3 people

  2. Jett Black says:

    Too bad they couldn’t eject Terry McAuliffe while they were at it. Don’t think he’d be there now, if McDonnell hadn’t been indicted/convicted.

    Liked by 8 people

    • mikeyboo says:

      And that was the real reason behind the prosecution of McDonnell.

      Liked by 6 people

      • annieoakley says:

        Yep.

        Liked by 2 people

      • flova says:

        Bingo, Everyone here in Virginia knew it was politically timed right before the election. Smear the Republican to get McAuliffe in. This was on local television and local radio shows 24/7.

        McDonnell was also being vetted for Romney’s VP in 2012. The Dems had to get Virginia. The verdict today was inevitable and what’s more the Dems knew it all along and didn’t care. The scandal served its purpose.

        And these idiot RINO’s think Trump should tone it down. GTH.

        Liked by 6 people

        • WSB says:

          He was Ted ‘Stevensed’. He probably should not get into a plane for awhile.

          Liked by 4 people

          • maiingankwe says:

            WSB,
            I really liked Ted Stevens. He did a heck of a lot for the state of Alaska, and if you took a consensus of the people they would’ve told you like they told me they didn’t care what he’d done and if he was guilty. They thought what he had accomplished for us was far greater then his crimes could ever be.

            I’m serious. I heard so many cool stories about this guy, and their experiences with him. He was an Alaskan through and through. Now, I didn’t care for his spoiled daughter very much when I had to interact with her, but she was young, and we can all certainly grow up or not. Plus, I wasn’t voting for her, it was for her Dad.

            I had never met him, and I always regretted that because he really did make himself available to us. He was also known not to mince words, and could care less if your feelings got hurt if he didn’t side with you. Needless to say, in the majority of these circumstances he was in the right anyways.

            In addition, I was a lot younger and a heck of a lot less involved with politics when this all went down. I do remember and will admit, I did not want to learn he was guilty, so I decided to keep my head in the sand. I didn’t want to change what I had thought of him, and that he was a good man.

            Liked by 1 person

            • WSB says:

              What I have always heard is that Stevens was an old fashioned Politician who brought home the bacon, including the bridge to nowhere, but that he was a decent character. I do not think he should have laundered money through to his state but so be it. He seems to have been a decent person and did not deserve the Democrat shakedown or a plane accident.

              Murkowski is a joke, and she ruined a decent Tea Party candidate.

              Like

        • scott says:

          Just like Harry Reids lie against Romney. Defending it, he simply said that it worked.

          Liked by 1 person

          • ladypenquin says:

            I know. When Reid said that my nausea was so great – it was like seeing the Devil himself speaking – and I have no idea what the Devil looks like…

            Like

      • ladypenquin says:

        Absolutely. McDonnell had been a successful governor – as far as Virginians go – and the Republicans had a strong likelihood of retaining at least one of the top 3 state offices. The hounding and pounding of Gov. McDonnell daily in the Lefty run newspapers sealed his fate, and the fate of the GOP for this past election cycle. We lost all 3 offices to the Dems, Cuccinelli ( Gov. race) almost pulled it off in the closing days, but it was too late. The GOP-E had not given him the supported needed. The Chamber of Commerce endorsed McAuliffe, so that tells you everything you need to know. Cuccinelli is a strong conservative. E.W. Jackson, ran for Lt. Governor, a strong black conservative and the guy, Obershain, who lost the AG slot, only lost by a few votes.

        The Dems play dirty.

        Liked by 3 people

    • CountryClassVulgarian says:

      McAwful would not be there if the republican party had not abandoned Virginia. They absolutely hated Ken Cuccinelli. He was too conservative for them. Bill Bolling and the rest of that disgusting gang did everything possible to ensure defeat. Because just like hildebeest, McAwful was more acceptable to them.

      Liked by 2 people

      • ladypenquin says:

        You’re absolutely right. Never felt so bitter to see the sabotaging of our own candidates by the Republican Party. Now, I won’t vote for someone just because they have the “R” after their name. I have friends who are also lifetime Republican voters who say they will actively work for “R” opponents in downticket races if they mess with Donald Trump’s nomination. Voting for a Party who behaves no differently than the opposition party, and even deliberately enables the opposition…well, at this point, what difference does it make!

        Don’t have to do it, and won’t.

        Like

        • CountryclassVulgarian says:

          I depise the Republucan party as a rule. I reserve a special level of contempt for the RPV. I don’t have the words to express my opinion for that bunch.

          Like

  3. The Boss says:

    I thought exactly along these lines when I heard this news today. Not only the perceived benefit for the Clinton syndicate, but congressional leaders as well. HOWEVER…there is a way to prove corruption, conspiracy and a few other felonies. McDonnell’s case was obviously political. A case against Hillary, Bill, Pablo and friends would more easily be construed as criminal. There is precedent. “100%”. No hints though. No telling who trolls this site.

    Liked by 7 people

    • Sandra-VA says:

      They also declined to hear another Corruption conviction (cannot remember who it was), and they did the same with the Chicago mayor who wanted to sell Obama’s seat. So, saying that this was done in order to help Clinton is incorrect. (Sorry to disagree with you, Sundance.).

      Liked by 3 people

    • WSB says:

      Yes, I could be wrong but this case does not dispell the other connections to quid pro quo, just airtight cases. May the FBI take as long as it needs.

      Like

  4. Bob says:

    Looks like she might SKATE again….lets make sure she doesn’t…

    Liked by 1 person

    • Sam says:

      She will. Hillary knows far too much about far too many people to be convicted. And her supporters are rabid crazy believing she can do no wrong and if she did, well, she deserves to get away with it.

      Like

  5. Jett Black says:

    The decision can also be viewed as a road map for prosecutors to know exactly what they do need to make this kind of prosecution stick–I don’t think they’d have much difficulty establishing qpqs for the “donations” to the Clintoons–State Dept. approvals, appointments, land sales, weapons sales/deals, ad nauseam. Prosecutors don’t need an appellate road map, they need cajones and bosses who aren’t just as guilty as the criminal defendants.

    Liked by 8 people

  6. Nessie509 says:

    The Clintons covered the bribery by delivering speeches. In nearly every case where there is a quid quo pro inference, a Clinton delivered one or more speeches.

    Liked by 1 person

  7. JSBachLover says:

    This is rather bizarre, to have come up right now as well: Top official who was to testify against Hilary was found dead — and there appear to be suspicious circumstances http://www.thepoliticalinsider.com/top-official-set-testify-hillary-found-dead-breaking-news/?utm_source=SailThru%26utm_newsletter&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=TPI%20Newsletter%2006-27-16%20Curated/Horizon%20Tier%201&utm_term=Tier%201

    Liked by 1 person

    • Sandra-VA says:

      This has been debunked several times the past few days 🙂 There is nothing to say he was set to testify against Clinton – he was facing charges of his own and hadn’t gone to court yet.

      Of course, the fact that a barbell was a participant in the murder… sure does look suspicious!!!!

      Liked by 2 people

  8. Geez, when will it ever end?

    Liked by 2 people

  9. craig swanson says:

    I don’t know if this is the time or place but it seems all to often a conservative president selects a supreme court justice that surprisingly turns out to be liberal. We are always told there is no way to know in advance how the justice will rule until they are on the court. Sorry, I am not that stupid. They know perfectly well how their fellow buddy from the ruling class is going to rule on the court. I could tell you exactly how all my friends would rule and if I didn’t know I wouldn’t select them.

    Liked by 4 people

  10. GoldenEye says:

    It all comes back to the Clinton’s, doesn’t it? I don’t think anyone will shed any tears when those two go to jail.

    Liked by 2 people

  11. kinthenorthwest says:

    this is why I am trying to just stay away from politics
    What is going on and happening to our country goes against everything our parents and forefathers fought for….
    Just keep shaking my head everything I see people totally ignore what Traitor and Criminal Hillary is.. H3LL if the Dems are so H3LLbent on having a woman, how about Warren, Wasserman, Pelosi, Boxer or ??? any of the many other DNC people who are maybe big insane liars, but are at least not known Criminals and American Traitors like Hillary is

    Liked by 2 people

  12. NJF says:

    Here’s what I’d like to know: why was Crooked Hillary even allowed to become a high level member of Obozzo’s cabinet while remaining connected to such a huge charitable global foundation?

    My understanding was that there were supposed to be ZERO foreign gov’t donations while she was SoS, yet time and time again the money rolled in.

    Yet, low and behold, one of the first things Trump got hammered on was his business. At one of the debates they practically made him swear on a bible that he would remove himself from his business?????!!!!

    Some days, its just all so damn depressing.

    Liked by 3 people

  13. So selling arms and uranium etc etc to the highest bidder or countries bribing her with millions is not taking specific action to benefit the briber? She would ordinarily have done these things anyway? Nothing to see here in her erased emails then I guess? C’mon…she is corrupt as hell.

    Liked by 5 people

  14. Cee says:

    What is the difference between a gift and a bribe? A gift is something of value given without the expectation of return; a bribe is the same thing given in the hope of influence or benefit. Hillary and Bill were bribed.

    Liked by 3 people

  15. Sandra-VA says:

    Bob McDonnell was innocent, as many of us in VA knew all along. This was a POLITICAL prosecution to prevent him running for Senate – someone was very threatened by his intent to do so.

    He broke no laws. NONE. He was a good governor who was on the road to higher office and now his reputation has been tarnished beyond repair. A man was destroyed because he was a political threat.

    This is absolutely NOTHING like Hillary Clinton’s problem with her crimes… there is clear pay to play involvement all over the place.

    Liked by 6 people

  16. Tonawanda says:

    Conflict of interest should be criminalized using appropriate definitions and a sufficiently close personal nexus.

    Coercion, extortion, bribery are all interrelated but difficult/impossible to prove. The insiders ALL know that. That is the Clintons’ operating principle.

    Conflict of interest should be boosted from the “ethical” realm to the moral/criminal realm.

    Conflict of interest is and has been the open secret of corruption in America for a long time, and it can be easily addressed, but it is too obscure for general comprehension.

    Liked by 3 people

    • WSB says:

      You are so correct.

      ‘Setting up a meeting, hosting an event, or calling an official (or agreeing to do so) merely to talk about a research study or to gather additional information…does not qualify as a decision or action on the pending question” of whether a government agency should take an explicit action in favor of a constituent.’

      Hillary’s speeches were Official Events.

      ‘The Chief Justice made clear that the decision was driven in considerable part by the Court’s worry that the way McDonnell’s case unfolded — from the prosecutors’ bold charges — was a threat to the way representative government normally works. “The basic compact underlying representative government,” he wrote, “assumes that public officials will hear from their constituents and act appropriately on their concerns…The government’s position could cast a pall of potential prosecution over these relationships” if the constituents had made a campaign contribution or made a modest gesture of entertainment or an outing such as a ball game.’

      What’s interesting here is the word ‘constituents’. Plural, not singular. Representative government for constituents, not one person. Definition of constituents – American?

      Let’s also define the words influence and intimidation.

      Liked by 3 people

      • TheFightingMan says:

        Also, what’s up with the ‘modest gestures of entertainment . . . like a ball game’? Do these ivory-tower twits have any idea how much good college football games are per ticket, especially the rivalry games (Auburn/Alabama, Florida/FSU etc.)? The elites are so out of touch. We so need to throw them down into the mud and crush their faces into festering piles of hog filth.

        Liked by 2 people

  17. Joe Collins says:

    I thought so too. It is rare to get a unanimous verdict from the Supremes. Something else was going on . . and that something else is Hillary!

    Like

    • Pam says:

      Bingo!

      I don’t believe for one minute the woman will be indicited. As Judge Jeanine has said, Obama would be required to testify before a grand jury and no way will he do that. As long as Hillary follows orders, nothing will happen to her.

      As far as McDonnell goes, whether you think he was guilty or not, he did nothing in comparison to what Hillary did and so if she is going to get off Scott free, then it’s not fair to send him up the river for doing much less. We have to remember, Hillary has the blood of four innocent men in Benghazi on her hands.

      Like

    • And the soros/crockefeller crowd of globalist psychopaths intent on “full ownership” of all things living or not.

      Liked by 1 person

    • Maybe..but what McDonnell did was so nothing in the world of politics I was astounded that he was convicted….it should have been vacated. Billarys’ activities are so excessive and in a whole different league

      Liked by 1 person

      • WSB says:

        This is why I am wondering if this is not a road map for the FBI to review foreigners and other tripwire descriptives within the ruling?

        Like

    • Jett Black says:

      It’s more likely that what’s going on is the courts seeing more and more sloppy, politically motivated, embarrassingly inept and wasteful prosecutions because of the damage <0bummer has done to the DOJ–good, competent, principled, oath-keeping, law enforcement lawyers need not apply–only SJWs and political hacks. SCOTUS almost always takes cases to correct large swings or widespread errors in the way the “lower” courts and especially DOJ are doing things. This is that kind of case–a message to DOJ to get its stuff together.

      More over, the process of getting a case that isn’t a death penalty in front of SCOTUS takes years. McDonnell was applying for cert. to SCOTUS, the initial step in getting an appeal before them, in late 2015.

      As Sigmund Freud may have said, “Anything longer than it is wide is a penis, but a cigar is a smoke.” Sometimes a SCOTUS decision is just an indisputably correct decision in that particular case and its wider significance is just what it says it is–DOJ can’t convict and shouldn’t even try someone for taking bribes, if there’s no qpq evidence.

      Like

  18. David says:

    The entire Supreme Court needs to be impeached and start all over. We have four liberals and the others not so far behind. Then there is the NSA so probably dirt on then too. The Court has become nothing but a politically biased instrument instead of the original intention of interpreting and enforcing the Constitution. This country is so upside down I cannot believe it.

    Liked by 1 person

  19. RangerDoc says:

    I was once taught that as a pubic employee you were to avoid even the appearance of impropriety. How far the standards have fallen.

    Liked by 2 people

  20. This is it for me. Gave up TV several years ago along with magazines and newspapers. Only listened to Christian radio and read Drudge until I stumbled on TCH through a related article. But now I won’t come here anymore either. The whole world is beyond anything we can do. I’ll vote for Trump; beyond that I’m tuning out. God bless all of you who stick with it..

    Liked by 3 people

    • mamadogsite says:

      Leave if you choose, but this new information just put another coal on the anger fire. They, (the establishment and Government,) may kill me, but I refuse to go down without a fight. Stuff like this has been going on for generations, and it’s like the bully on the playground…(well..granted, the government is an enormous bully and our playground a tad bigger) but not unsurmountable.

      Look, we all have depressed days but then I remind myself it is the Satanic outside influences messing with news, polls and minds of good American people. I take a few days off from everything…sew…read a book…swim…and when I am strong again….I resume…strengthend with the knowledge there are millions of good, honest Trump supporters that I would NEVER abandon…and my voice and anger just gets stronger.

      Take a break from all of this…and come back to us when you’re ready. We’ll be here. Hugs friend.

      Liked by 7 people

      • WSB says:

        God bless your post. I just learned that a friend’s daughter, a 36 year-old married mother of three, may have just taken her own life.

        Nothing is worth a person’s frame of mind and constitution…we can all fight for our brothers and sisters.

        Peace.

        Liked by 3 people

        • mamadogsite says:

          So very sorry to hear this news. How devestating for this family…esp; the children. It is a scary time…and sometimes it feels like the boogie man..(and even some Cruz [booger] men) are everywhere.

          BUT, also keep in mind the negative forces, ie; the Globalists, and media people are probably fearing us…yes us…because we are pealing the layers of this rotten onion…one by one, and the closer we get to truths, corruptions, and criminality, the more they fear losing their lifestyles, their careers, their power.

          A lot of us lost money in the market the past 2 days, either directly, or through our 401K…but you know..the corrupt Wall Streeters, the bankers and GEORGE SOROS lost more…and I did my happy dance and fist pump.

          And I laughed, because they lost more.

          So much uncertainty ahead, but y’all know, the older you get, and the more you’ve experienced, there comes a day where you shed the fear, and the clarity and focus is amazing. We all have bad days…so if anyone is hurting or fearing….let us know. YOU ARE NOT ALONE….we’ll be here for you. Don’t let the booger man win!!!! 😉 Hugs friend.

          Liked by 3 people

          • Howie says:

            The only thin they fear is our vote. Mine…..they should be scared to death. It is all I got to give but it is coming.

            Like

          • WSB says:

            Lovely, thank you. And God bless Michelle. She was a lovely young sassy teenager when I first met her.

            On the happy dance side, I boldly bought some shares in a Scottish financial that was off almost 30%, so we’ll see how my little experiment goes.

            However, a stock purchase on an open low bid is a far different cry from collusion and racketeering within the Clinton Camp. There is plenty there if anyone cares. Look at Bill Cosby. Who knew he was using a modeling agency to line up hoardes of victims.

            The Clintons are of the same ilk.

            Liked by 1 person

            • mamadogsite says:

              I bought gold and gold miners mutual funds. Worried about the dollar as much as the Brits are for their pound.

              Liked by 1 person

              • WSB says:

                Commodities are great when they go up until they go down, just a bit quicker than equities. Let’s trade notes in a month or so. I will be so thrilled to hear your views. At least neither of us has acted officially, given speeches or used US taxpayer dollars to screw our countrymen or women!

                Liked by 1 person

      • lastConservinIllinois? says:

        Agree 100% mama.
        Personally, I refuse to go down without a fight on behalf of my kids, the youngest of which just turned 30 and has just provided us with my newest reason to not go down without a fight – our first grandchild.

        Beautiful child, charlotte just turned 5 months on Saturday.

        5 months = plenty more fight left in me.

        Liked by 4 people

    • rashamon says:

      Hey, are you really a Cub fan? Then, you have to be used to this nonsense.

      Like

      • lastConservinIllinois? says:

        Exactly!

        Should be like water off a duck’s back!

        Get back in here, Cub Fan!

        Liked by 1 person

      • Just came back to the Treehouse and saw your reply. I worked at the Tribune in the 50’s… can’t not be a Chicago sports fan. Was either at a baseball park or the Blackhawks games every spare moment. But even the worst opinionated sports writer doesn’t make up horrendous lies and get away with it. Anyway, thanks. I’m ready to fight the media for DJT and save America.

        Like

    • paulraven1 says:

      I completely understand and sympathize. I have felt this way at times. My thought is that all of us feel it to some degree, at some time. This is why I am trying to promote more effective and more viscerally satisfying (and materially productive) tactics of fighting the Progressive imperium, namely the media (which controls the culture). We’re frustrated because we keep playing the same game that doesn’t work for us — endlessly acquiescing to the presumed legitimacy of the MSM and liberal arbiters of the culture and their interrogator-interrogated dynamic. But why? Are they morally qualified to serve as interlocutors of the culture? Why do we feel honor-bound to go on their corrupted shows and answer their loaded questions? What if we asked THEM the questions, demanded THEY answer to the people? I honestly believe if we could change this dynamic, make them defensive on their own public platforms, we could do serious and demoralizing damage to the narrative machinery and the individuals who manage it. I’ve been watching the Right get its teeth kicked in for 30 years and I’m tired of it. I understand how Trump has shown a path toward the light, but it’s not enough. The cultural force of the Left is too massive. He needs help. He needs surrogates to challenge the media. He needs to make this election not only about Hillary but about the corrupt media. Look at what he has done this by the sheer force of a righteous, brave and contentious character. The lesson here is that contentiousness and challenge can work, and if it can work as well as it has through the strength of one man, what could dozens of others do across the media? I agree with Breitbart — nothing is more exciting to me than bringing down the media.

      Liked by 6 people

      • mamadogsite says:

        AMEN to this idea. If only…..we had a media outlet…that did interviews with other media personalities…did 24-7 fact checks and called EVERYONE out …on their misrepresentatiom, ideological “reporting”, and blatent lies. Just shaming them. And that goes for both sides of the asile.

        Today’s “news” is simply someone’s personal slant to a topic. Lordy…I think if 100 “reporters” watched 2 whales mating, there would be at least 80 different responses to what they “saw” and interpreted.

        Liked by 1 person

      • I agree, as well!

        Reminds me of the good old days of Johnny Carson….he brought on new talent all the time and gave them a chance to hit the big time…gave them an audience! His skits and personalities were funny and creative. No laugh tracks needed!

        Then came along Leno, Letterman and the current crop of crap. Seems like all they ever did or still do today is tell one-sided lame political jokes, use laugh tracks because their writers are has-beens and recycle the same Hollywood stars who have a movie or a book to promote. The way “late-nite” is done today is just garbage. Why anyone watches them, and continues to give them a reason to exist, I will never understand.

        Liked by 1 person

        • mamadogsite says:

          How about comedians…Red Skelton, Lucille Ball, Carol Burnett as all of her crew…the Honeymooners…Bob Hope…Funny stuff… never had to use thr “F” word to be funny. If today’s comedians are indicativeof all of today’s culture…including political culture…we’re in deep doo-doo. No culture and taste left. Just filth…not even funny. Sad really.

          ….this POTUS and government is dragging this country into the sewers. Sorry folks…I like fresh air.

          Like

          • mamadogsite, agree with everything you have said, but you left out the sewer pipe of Hollywood…
            “….this POTUS and government [and the sewer pipe known as HOLLYWOOD] is dragging this country into the sewers. Sorry folks…I like fresh air.”

            Like

        • WSB says:

          Leno was OK.

          Like

      • got enough baseball and Bible study time to return ti the Treehouse, so I just saw your reply. Thank you for getting my resolve stoked. Been praying hard this past 3 weeks and I really feel God is leading us in this. Since it may well be my last Presidential vote I sure hope it will be the best; well equal to Reagan.

        Like

  21. Buckthorn1 says:

    Think of today’s ruling on McConnell’s case as a prisoner exchange. Gov Bob for Sec Hillary. Path is now cleared for her to move forward without any threat of charges.

    Like

  22. rebel53blog says:

    Corruption runs very deep with our public servants. Really doesn’t surprise me, it just seems to get worse everyday.
    America First – Trump

    Liked by 1 person

  23. cara says:

    I seriously doubt that Justice Clarence Thomas wants to do anything that would benefit Bill and Hillary Clinton.

    On a related note: you’d think, wouldn’t you, since Donald Trump knows hundreds if not thousands of rich, connected, important people, that at least ONE of them would have used his or her cell phone to video or at least record a speech that Hillary Clinton has given over the years, that at least ONE speech had a line or a paragraph that would be as damaging to her image as a fighter for the little guy as Mitt Romney’s “47%” was damaging to his campaign.

    AT least ONE????????????? At least ONE turned over to the Trump campaign after all the hundreds of speeches she’s given to corporate heads and lobbying groups?

    Liked by 3 people

    • cara says:

      I meant to add that if such a smoking gun exists, the Trump campaign, I trust, would leak it at just the right time, but still, if there is something like that…or at least one transcript of a damning speech, I’d like it to be out now, maybe one now and one right after the Dem convention.

      Liked by 1 person

  24. benY says:

    Nothing will change, and will only get worse, until Trump cleans out the whole nest of vipers in the DOJ. While he’s at it maybe he can do away with the “slip and fall” conglomerate.

    Liked by 3 people

  25. John Galt says:

    Sunni: will you bomb Assad in Syria if I give you a bunch of money and fund your campaign?

    Hillary: I can’t promise any quid pro quo, but I might consider doing it as a routine favor.

    Liked by 3 people

  26. Lucille says:

    The decision by SCOTUS is correct. It’s doubtful any consideration of Hillary had a thing to do with it. A step too far in speculation, IMHO.

    Liked by 2 people

    • John Galt says:

      I don’t think you read the case. The facts set forth constitute incredibly blatant bribery.

      Like

      • WSB says:

        While it seems to devastate a future prosecution, it narrows the road but is nothing that can’t be brought up as Official Acts. Hosting a speech is not the same as giving the speech. Goldman hosted Hillary but she officially gave the speech, no? Uranium transfers are official, no?

        Liked by 1 person

        • John Galt says:

          Could it be any more blatant?

          “According to Williams, she explained that the “Governor says it’s okay for me to help you and—but I need you to help me. I need you to help me with this financial situation.”
          Id., at 2231. Mrs. McDonnell then asked Williams for a $50,000 loan, in addition to a $15,000 gift to help pay for her daughter’s wedding, and Williams agreed. Williams testified that he called Governor McDonnell after the meeting and said, “I understand the financial problems and I’m willing to help. I just wanted to make sure that you knew about this.”Id., at 2233. According to Williams, Governor McDonnell thanked him for his help.”

          Like

      • Jett Black says:

        JG, a non-official, doing personal stuff in exchange for money or accepting gifts or personally helping the gift-giver is not bribery, even if that non-official is married to a governor. Did the governor tell a clerk of court to issue the guy a license he wasn’t entitled to? Did the governor strong-arm a DA to throw out a case against the guy that should have been prosecuted? Did the governor push legislation through his state legislature to eliminate Williams’ competition or allow him to do something he couldn’t otherwise do? No. No. No. And nothing like that. There’s no bribe–tawdry business and personal dealings, maybe, but not bribery. McDonnel was foolish, not criminal.

        Liked by 2 people

        • CountryClassVulgarian says:

          I am still waiting to see/hear EXACTLY what favors Johnny Williams got from Bob McDonnell. You know how all this got started? A rabid homosexual cook at the governor’s mansion who hated Maureen McDonnell. Now Maureen, from all appearances was a prima donna but she did not commit any crime. She was swayed by Williams’ money and she destroyed her family in the process. Again, neither of them are guilty of anything other than bad judgement and stupidity.

          Like

  27. WeThePeople2016 says:

    This was my first thought as well. Our dear Governor, Terry McAwful, is in so deep in corruption and the trail leads to Clinton. He is being investigated and I believe there is a lawsuit against him now. The liberal judges were thinking ahead to warn any possible corruption charges that may be made against him.
    Bob McDonnell was an okay Governor. This case against him was a witch hunt, pure and simple. It turned many GOP sour in the state because there was a constant drumbeat in the W.P. and other news outlets on McDonnell and his corruption charges. It was being done on purpose to shame the GOP. By the time the election came around for a new Governor, a good deal of the GOP base stayed home – it was a low turnout.
    One thing to point out though, McDonnell gave Virginia the largest tax increase via a so-called massive state-wide road bill. There was fierce opposition to it, but he plowed ahead and there was a lot of cronyism going on with some RINOs in the state legislature.
    It was also under McDonnell’s watch that Smithfield Hams, one of our country’s oldest and well-known ham industry, in Smithfield, VA, was sold to the Chinese under the guise that it is good business for Virginia. That upset me so much and turned my stomach.

    Liked by 1 person

    • WSB says:

      My family is in VA, so I think the same from their knowledge about the witch hunt. But similar to Smithfield Hams, which I no longer purchase, we, in NY, had the Waldorf Astoria bought out from under us by the Chinese awhile back. They just announced they will be converting it into condos. Probably for people, arms dealers and retired Chinese generals, to purchase and hide US dollars in US real estate.

      We have to turn the world right side up again. In. Every. Sector.

      Liked by 1 person

      • WeThePeople2016 says:

        I just recently heard about the Waldorf Astoria being bought by the Chinese. So sad. Supposedly, it became a security risk to hold some political event there because they were afraid the Chinese bugged their rooms. Well, we sold it to them, what do we expect.

        Liked by 1 person

        • WSB says:

          l was commissioned to refurbish the UN Ambassador’s apartment in the ’90’s and many other projects within the hotel. I worked on the suite when Albright and Richardson were in residence…yikes.

          And, yes, that is all gone now because of the Chinese.

          Like

    • CountryClassVulgarian says:

      Yes, McDonnell did give us that wonderful road bill. He lost me with that one. But yes, the case was a witch hunt. On the other hand, hildebeest’s lacky Terry McAwful is under federal investigation for actual crimes that he has committed. Now there is a man who needs to be in jail.

      Liked by 1 person

  28. bocephus0h says:

    So basically no politician will ever be convicted of bribery again using the precedent set by this decision, based on an extremely limited interpretation of an “official act”… Done

    Like

  29. Howie says:

    Let’s Go! Now is the time I think. Restore America. It shall happen. JMO.

    Like

  30. Flying Blogger says:

    They are all protecting the corruption that they practice. Just look at the financial disclosure reports of SCOTUS and you can see the special interests at work. Make no mention of gifts they receive. They the judges get to judge themselves innocent of their corruption.

    Liked by 1 person

  31. “The case against Bob McDonnell was based on him accepting gifts while an elected public official. Accepting gifts and/or donations itself is not illegal. Does it look untoward, unsavory or tawdry, yes. But if the official (recipient) takes no substantive action to benefit the contributor, meaning there is no quid-pro-quo, then no laws have been broken.

    I don’t know anything about this ex-governor or the wife. In general, though, it must be just too much to ask that people in positions of influence and power hold themselves to a higher standard. In the public eye, doing something that might not be ‘illegal’, but LOOKS untoward, unsavory or tawdry… Isn’t that enough to just stay away or say NO, lest you give the wrong impression, or lead a weaker man astray?????

    sheesh.

    throw all of these bums out!!!!!😤

    Like

  32. Jill says:

    US Constitution? We don’t need the Constitution!

    “And on another note about academia and practical law, I see absolutely no value to a judge of spending decades, years, months, weeks, day, hours, minutes, or seconds studying the Constitution, the history of its enactment, its amendments, and its implementation (across the centuries—well, just a little more than two centuries, and of course less for many of the amendments). Eighteenth-century guys, however smart, could not foresee the culture, technology, etc., of the 21st century. Which means that the original Constitution, the Bill of Rights, and the post–Civil War amendments (including the 14th), do not speak to today. David Strauss is right: The Supreme Court treats the Constitution like it is authorizing the court to create a common law of constitutional law, based on current concerns, not what those 18th-century guys were worrying about.

    In short, let’s not let the dead bury the living.

    Federal Judge Richard A. Posner, U.S. Court of Appeals for the 7th Circuit, and a senior lecturer at the University of Chicago Law School.

    http://tinyurl.com/hf9wm4g

    Like

  33. Glen says:

    This was a win-win decision for the Uniparty. The evidence required to justify an investigation of Clinton’s shenanigans has been elevated. Trump’s accusations of corruption are now easily deflected.

    Like

  34. roberto says:

    no one wants to end up like Scalia. Simple and Period.

    Like

  35. Martin says:

    Wow. We have a) getting it exactly backwards, even after what SD wrote, and b) using HuffPo as a source to refute the SCOTUS ruling. The unanimous ruling.

    I see cold anger growing less cold, of late. Yes, there’s reasons to be irritated, even contentious. But the Left is only getting started. We’ve still got 6 months to go, and then there’s the actual work post election. Ulcer, or casualty?

    Neither for me, thanks.

    Liked by 1 person

  36. R-C says:

    If we simply confine ourselves to prosecuting Hillary Clinton for her serial felony violations of the Espionage Act (18USC)

    Liked by 2 people

  37. William says:

    Precedence is a major part of how the justice system tries cases. It has its place but there need to be brakes applied to the first impulse reliance on its use for it has its shortcomings.

    Liked by 2 people

  38. SZ says:

    To refresh our memories regarding “Clinton Cash” book by Peter Schweizer
    and “Lying, Crooked Hillary”…and they just “keep on keeping on” protecting their criminality from the top down.

    Liked by 1 person

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s