& The FBI and DOJ....... Corruption and FBI problems
at end of email.................??????
scary (article at end) .....but believe it or not......our forefathers designed
a "checks and balances" to prevent such a problem...THE ELECTORAL
COLLEGE. The delegates of each state are pledged but NOT
obligated by law to vote for the states winner. The winner of tonight's
election is NOT President Elect UNTIL the Electoral College holds its vote the Monday after the second Wednesday in
December following the election. It is at this time we have a "President
following quote reveals the "checks and balances" in the electoral
system......(Entire article on the Electoral College is below the quote and
"Some elements of the Electoral College, such as the
indirect vote through intermediaries, were
hotly debated at the 1787 Constitutional Convention. It was eventually
justified in part as a stopgap to potentially 'reverse the vote if the
people elected a criminal, traitor, or similar kind of heinous person.' The
Founders wanted to empower democratic elements in the American system, but they
feared a kind of pure, unrestrained democracy that had brought down great
republics of the past."
With the FBI
changing it's mind every week and more WikiLeaks coming and the statements made
by the New York Police Department.....no matter who is elected
tonight.....there is plenty of time for ANYTHING TO HAPPEN TO CLINTON AND OR
TRUMP! (Trump may also be under investigation)
Why We Use Electoral College, Not Popular Vote
election system was designed to empower the states, not just the American
people as an undifferentiated mass
Jarrett Stepman is an editor
for The Daily Signal. Send an email to Jarrett.
The Electoral College remains
in place over two centuries after the framers of the Constitution empowered it
to select presidents. Though occasionally maligned, this system of electing a
chief executive has been incredibly successful for the American people.
Many modern voters might be
surprised to learn that when they step into a ballot box to select their
candidate for president, they actually are casting a vote for fellow Americans
called electors. These electors, appointed by the states, are pledged to
support the presidential candidate the voters have supported. The Electoral
College holds its vote the Monday after the second Wednesday in December
following the election.
The Founding Fathers created
the Electoral College after much debate and compromise, but it has provided
stability to the process of picking presidents. Though the winner of the
national popular vote typically takes the presidency, that vote failed to
determine the winner in four elections: 1824, 1876, 1888, and 2000.
Some see the Electoral College
as a peculiar and mystifying institution that ensures only a few, select
individuals will ever cast a direct vote for president in the United States.
Others complain that the system rewards smaller states with more proportional
power than the large ones.
Every four years, around
election time, there are murmurs about revamping the system and moving toward a
direct, national popular vote.
The Founders’ College
As one of The Heritage
Foundations legal experts, Hans von Spakovsky, noted
in a paper on the Electoral College: “In creating the basic architecture of the
American government, the Founders struggled to satisfy each state’s demand for
greater representation while attempting to balance popular sovereignty against
the risk posed to the minority from majoritarian rule.”
Some elements of the Electoral
College, such as the indirect vote through intermediaries, were
hotly debated at the 1787 Constitutional Convention. It was eventually
justified in part as a stopgap to potentially reverse the vote if the people
elected a criminal, traitor, or similar kind of heinous person. The Founders
wanted to empower democratic elements in the American system, but they feared a
kind of pure, unrestrained democracy that had brought down great republics of
The product of the Founders’
compromise has been well balanced and enduring, and we would be wise to leave
Alexander Hamilton defended
the Electoral College in Federalist 68. He argued that it was important for the
people as a whole to have a great deal of power in choosing their president,
but it was also “desirable” that “the immediate election should be made by men
most capable of analyzing the qualities adapted to the station, and acting
under circumstances favorable to deliberation, and to a judicious combination
of all the reasons and inducements which were proper to govern their choice.”
Hamilton also wrote that this
system of intermediaries would produce a greater amount of stability, and that
an “ … intermediate body of electors will be much less apt to convulse the
community with any extraordinary or violent movements, than the choice of one
who was himself to be the final object of the public wishes.”
As students of ancient
history, the Founders feared the destructive passions of direct democracy, and
as recent subjects of an overreaching monarch, they equally feared the rule of
an elite unresponsive to the will of the people. The Electoral College was a
compromise, neither fully democratic nor aristocratic.
The Constitution states:
Each state shall appoint, in
such manner as the legislature thereof may direct, a number of electors, equal
to the whole number of senators and representatives to which the state may be
entitled in the Congress.
In addition to balancing the
protection of individual rights and majority rule, the Founding Fathers
attempted to create a “federalist” system that would keep most of policymaking
power reserved to states and localities. America’s presidential election system
also was designed to empower the states, not just the American people as an
The total number of electors
and thus electoral votes across all states and the District of
Columbia—included after the passage of the 23rd Amendment—adds up to 538. The
winner must receive a majority, or 270, of these votes to become president.
The system empowers states,
especially smaller ones, because it incentivizes presidential candidates to
appeal to places that may be far away from population centers. Farmers in Iowa
may have very different concerns than bankers in New York. A more federalist
system of electing presidents takes that into account.
The states are free to select
the method in which they choose their electors. In the early days of the
republic, most states chose to have their legislatures pick electors, rather
than the people. But, over time, the states shifted to choosing electors via
the state’s popular vote instead. Every state has opted for popular election at
least since the Civil War.
Calls to Abolish
Modern opponents of the
Electoral College argue against what they call antidemocratic aspects of the
institution, criticizing both the intermediary electors and the state-by-state
system of voting.
Calls to fundamentally change
the Electoral College reached a peak after Republican George W. Bush defeated
Democrat Al Gore in the tightly contested 2000 election. Gore narrowly won the
national popular vote, and many of his supporters howled that the system—even
without the Supreme Court stepping in—was unfair.
One organization, National
Popular Vote, has worked toward eliminating the Electoral College through an
amendment to the Constitution or a state
compact. National Popular Vote argues that the current system encourages
presidential candidates to spend most of their time in “swing states” rather
than campaigning for votes across the entire country.
This plan for a national
popular vote has received a moderate level of support, but Heritage’s von
Spakovsky has called it bad policy, based on mistaken assumptions. Swing
states, he wrote, “can change from election to election, and many states that
are today considered to be reliably ‘blue’ or ‘red’ in the presidential race
were recently unpredictable.”
Many states have signed
on to a bill that essentially would tie a state’s electoral votes to the
national popular vote. Those states will pledge to swing all of their electoral
votes to the winner of the national vote.
But this is because the
incentives would be to appeal only to the biggest population centers. Swing
states change over time, and the 2016 election could be a prime example of
swing-state unpredictability and erosion of the traditional partisan political
Additionally, if the president
were elected by unfiltered national vote, small and rural states would become
irrelevant, and campaigns would spend their time in large, populous districts.
Over 200 Years of Success
Unneeded tinkering with a
process that is over two centuries old could destabilize one on the steadiest
political systems in the world.
As author and Texas lawyer
Tara Ross wrote
in a Heritage Foundation memorandum:
America’s election systems
have operated smoothly for more than 200 years because the Electoral College
accomplishes its intended purposes. America’s presidential election process
preserves federalism, prevents chaos, grants definitive electoral outcomes, and
prevents tyrannical or unreasonable rule. The Founding Fathers created a
stable, well-planned, and carefully designed system—and it works.
On Election Day, Americans
should appreciate the great and long-lasting constitutional tradition
bequeathed to them—including the quirky Electoral College system created by the
Some truth, some speculation. The first paragraph is pure
speculation and a guess as to why Comey caved to the Clintons.
There is no question that
the game is rigged, but it isn’t easy to prove it. The players are too
good at it.
America is now like a third
world country, the government is corrupt and in full control. There is no
two party system and no checks and balances.
Just passing this
on... quite likely our next President!
and Obama made it clear to Comey that, if he pressed for an indictment, he
would be taking the Democrat nominee for president out of the election. If he
failed to get a conviction, then he would be facing charges of tampering with
and changing the outcome of a federal election, to which he would be facing the
rest of his life in prison, and Obama and Lynch, as well as others, would see
to it that he did. Now you know why he presented his case the way he did and
why it was so obvious he was reluctant to not press for an indictment.
Hillary's statement to the FBI was intentionally given without a
court reporter present or without any recording of her testimony to prevent her
from having any further exposure to legal charges such as perjury.
If she lied to Congress, they have no written FBI deposition to confront
Hillary with. This was set up to let her walk without fear of being charged
with giving False Testimony or being charged with Obstruction of Justice. This
is what those in the "legalese world" call a "Straw Man"
legal charge. (It is a charge designed to make someone, especially lawyers,
appear innocent of the charges!)
Bill beats up Shirley at their home. Bill is arrested for "Felony Spousal
Abuse" . Bill's lawyer gets the charges dismissed because Bill is not
married to Shirley! (They are only "live-in boyfriend and
girlfriend".) Bill walks out of court totally exonerated of the
charges––thanks to a technicality! The twist in the case is the arresting
officer knew all along Bill was not married to Shirley, because the officer and
Bill are old fraternity brothers. The officer intentionally charged Bill with something
he knew would not stick. Bill would easily have been convicted of Assault and
Battery, but he was not charged with that! This is what is known as the
"STRAW MAN" charge. It is how you make a guilty
person appear innocent. This is exactly what
was done with the Hillary Clinton case!
If she had been charged with
"Destruction of Government Documents", she would have easily been
convicted, because she admitted to doing this! Instead, she was charged with
"Mishandling Classified Documents" which has wiggle room for
reasonable doubt regarding Criminal Intent! I think citizens are finally
fed up with the Clintons and the cesspool of corruption that is our current
government. Real Americans are ready to take
our country back. All of these years of corruption have taken a toll on
American lives. Citizens' opinions of a lying White House,
a corrupt Congress, the "pay to play" politicians, the legalese
lawyers and lobbyists, big overspending "welfare mentality"
government, the "looking for a loop hole" justice system, the lying
media, and our censored educational system with an agenda to dumb down the next
generation, is at its lowest point ever.
Hillary is on the wrong side of every issue.
The British Exit from the EU (Brexit) is just
a small sign that real citizens of civilized nations are ready to take their
country back. They are sick of the results of open borders and globalization
led by power-hungry elitists. Hillary Clinton has no character or integrity.
She is an arrogant, condescending political elite who is only interested in
lining the Clinton pockets with donations to the Clinton Foundation (wink,
wink) from PACs, lobbyists, and foreign nations that buy access and favors.
Clinton Foundation is nothing more than an operation used to launder money for
the Clintons and other politicians involved in illegal activities. The Clintons
are able to use the information of those participating to obtain cover for
their activities, or blackmail those who are laundering money through them.
Just count the number of politicians who arrive in Washington with nothing, but
then leave as millionaires and billionaires. Did their votes serve in the best
interest of their constituents or did they only benefit themselves? If the
representatives of your state fall in this category, then I suggest an
investigation be launched.
FYI....It has come to light that Comey was
(or still is) on the Board of Directors of the HSBC Bank where the Clinton
Foundation has holdings.
KLEIN who wrote the book on the Clintons, now published and available -- said
Hillary was called to the office of Valerie Jarrett and Obama back in 2009 and
told her she had to stop sending emails thru her personal server ––– OBVIOUSLY
SHE DIDN'T LISTEN TO THEM. So, YES, Obama knew and Jarrett knew and Huma knew,
... along with how many others!!!!
"FBI Director James Comey basically
delivered a coded message to the American People and the world. He said...she
is guilty beyond any reasonable doubt, certainly should not be president, and
should be brought to justice ... However, our country has been infiltrated and
is basically corrupt.
key point is in what Comey said: There were 80 email chains, which means
an exchange between people, ... Hillary sending AND RECEIVING, ... so if he
charges Hillary, he has to charge the others in the chain. What if the exchange
is with Obama? It is not a stretch to think the Sec of State would be in email
contact with PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES).
just say...Bill went to Loretta and said shut this down...or else if Hillary is
charged she will tell under oath that some of the emails were with the
President...so he is also guilty of a felony...THAT is IMPEACHABLE .
The law firm Kahn worked for
is also the law firm for the royal court of Saudi Arabia and the tax lawyers
for the Clintons and for the Clinton Foundation. It is also the firm Loretta
Lynch worked for. They also represent a small Tech firm in Denver
Colorado. which so happens to be the same Tech firm that managed Hillary's
private server. Coincidence?