Hillary says no...
Depending on your source... Hillary says no to a run in the 2020 presidential election.Certainly her chances this late in the game would be low and the motivation isn't there.
From a March 2019 interview she said:
online today!Boca Raton, Florida, USA
Certainly her chances this late in the game would be low and the motivation isn't there.
From a March 2019 interview she said:
More Blogs... Read Next
Meet the Author of this Blog
online today!
chatillion
Boca Raton, Florida, USA
I have an amazing ability to sniff-out bogus profiles...
If you're half my age... Don't expect a response!
[read more]
About this Blog
by chatillion
created Oct 2019
546 Views
Last Viewed: Apr 15
Last Commented: Oct 2019
1 Likes
Last Liked: Oct 2019
chatillion has 1,879 other Blogs
chatillion Blogs (1,879)
Feeling Creative?
Report Blogs that break rules, are offensive, or contain fighting. Staff may not be aware of the Blog Abuse, and cannot do anything about it unless you tell us about it. click to Report Blog Abuse »
If one of the comments is offensive, please report the comment instead (there is a link in each comment to report it).
If one of the comments is offensive, please report the comment instead (there is a link in each comment to report it).
Comments (16)
Now your party is so fractured that it's unlikely they won't be deemed relevant until you and I are dead....
Possibly so, Doc
History indicates that things can turn around remarkably quickly.
After Nixon's resignation & Ford's blanket pardon, some opined that the 'Publican Party might go the way of the Whigs
That was in '76.
A mere four years later - The Reagan Revolution.
A solid & resounding shellacking in '20 might jar the 'Crats back to reality.
Let the ol' timers (Hildy, Pocahontas, Sleepy Joe
Get some new blood with ideas other than - "Orange Man - BAD!
What makes it tough for them is The Don has staked out a lotta ol' time Yellow Dog 'Crat turf - notably blue collar pocketbook issues.
The Blue Wall Rust Belt States may prove difficult to get back into the 'Crat fold.
It might be best if the 'Crats go with Sleepy Joe
Why?
Women are 0 for 3 on National Tickets (Ferraro, Palin, Hildy...not including Victoria Woodhull vs U.S. Grant back in the day
Hanging a 4th loss on 'em - and back to back losses heading a National Ticket - could make it difficult for ANY woman to be seriously considered for a National Ticket - Presidential Pariahs
Better to give the gals a break
IMO
"Victoria Claflin Woodhull, later Victoria Woodhull Martin (September 23, 1838 – June 9, 1927), was an American leader of the women's suffrage movement. In 1872, she ran for President of the United States. While many historians and authors agree that Woodhull was the first woman to run for President of the United States, some have questioned that priority given issues with the legality of her run. They disagree with classifying it as a true candidacy because she was younger than the constitutionally mandated age of 35. (Woodhull's 35th birthday was in September 1873, seven months after the March inauguration). However, election coverage by contemporary newspapers does not suggest age was a significant issue; this may, however, be due to the fact that no one took the candidacy seriously. ..."
I think she can "do" it , she should double down on doing it
See comments on the vid...
"Mental illness is clearly an issue with the bitter old woman."
"Hillary will stop trying to be President only when she's dead."
More...
each of which has agendas. My agenda is a better USA. That certainly does NOT mean Trump.
I don't recall the Supreme court ruling on emoluments clause violations going on very recently.
Indeed, that which was previously thrown out has been re-instated.
and here's an article from yesterday;
No sense of honesty, nor decency.
The requirement is absolute—no litigant can bring a case without showing he has suffered harm, as per Article III of the constitution—but it is notoriously indeterminate. The Supreme Court’s three-part test from a 1992 case says a plaintiff must have sustained an “injury in fact” that is “concrete” and “particularised” and must be “actual” rather than hypothetical; that the defendant must have plausibly contributed to the alleged harm;
Now the current claim of violations have yet to come before SCOTUS. A federal appeals court dismissed two lawsuits claiming Trumps hotels were in violation of the emoluments clause.
"— In a legal victory for President Trump, a federal appeals court panel on Wednesday ordered the dismissal of a lawsuit claiming that he had violated the Constitution by collecting profits from government guests at his hotel in the nation’s capital."
"A three-judge panel of the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit in Richmond, Va., found that the state of Maryland and the District of Columbia had no legal standing to sue Mr. Trump.
The judges roundly rejected the premise of the case, which claimed that the Trump International Hotel, blocks from the White House, is unfairly siphoning off business from hotels in which the local jurisdictions have a financial interest. The lawsuit, which alleges violations of the Constitution’s anti-corruption, or “emoluments,” clauses, was about to enter the evidence-gathering phase."
“The District and Maryland’s interest in enforcing the emoluments clauses is so attenuated and abstract that their prosecution of this case readily provokes the question of whether this action against the president is an appropriate use of the courts, which were created to resolve real cases and controversies,” the panel wrote in its decision."
Essentially they are saying the same thing.... you liberals are betting the latest narrative will succeed to convict President Trump of a crime he hasn't commited. And as always the left with the help of the media shouts "He's gulity" but you don't bring it to court because you lack any evidence. Repetition and headlines don't make it the truth. Now if Maryland and the District think they have a winnable case bring it to The Supreme Court again.