The NYT and Hillary Clinton have no respect for the Constitution.
What happened to Separation of Powers?
That’s just one more brilliant idea the Founding Fathers had that Hillary Clinton believes is unnecessary since it interferes with her personal agenda.
This from the NYT, which would have put any Republican candidate on the front page and on the hot seat for this position — but chose to barely report it concerning Hillary.
From NYT – “Most presidential candidates go out of their way to avoid appearances of having a litmus test for Supreme Court appointees. So it was unusual when Mrs. Clinton on Monday said publicly that she did have such a metric: overturning the Citizens United decision of 2010.
“I will do everything I can to appoint Supreme Court justices who protect the right to vote and do not protect the right of billionaires to buy elections,” Mrs. Clinton said while on Day 1 of a two-day swing through Iowa.”
Of course, the NYT whitewashed the remarks, what she actually said was she would not appoint anyone that had not given “assurances” they would vote to overturn this SCOTUS decision. Such a litmus test remark on abortion by any Republican candidate would have caused the NYT to stop the presses and re-write the front page but since it’s one of their own, hey, it barely even registers.
But I’m not the NYT so I can ask the question; why does a woman who has collected tens of millions from super Pac’s and every other unethical maneuver you can think of — want it stopped? Because she would love to be the last candidate ever to abuse the process this way, it would leave her in even more power, relatively.
If this country elects this unethical, power hungry witch, we’re all in even more trouble than we are under Obama the pretender.
More from the pathetic NYT – “The remark was praised by liberals and denounced by conservatives, who said it was at odds with the “super PAC” supporting her, made possible by the Citizens United decision.”
What did she have to say herself from close questioning on the matter?
Nothing of course, because as the NYT dutifully reports at the bottom of every glowing piece about her campaign: “…she is still steering clear of reporters’ questions, even from local journalists in the early states, whom most candidates engage while campaigning.”
Watch out America, electing this Democrat is one mistake too far; she’ll do more damage in four years than her husband and the great pretender have done in two entire administrations.
Even the NYT has doubts however, just read the last lines of the piece I quoted above:
“The article unnerved some former Obama administration officials and some former Clinton allies, as it hit many Republican criticisms of Mrs. Clinton — her handling of Libya, her use of a private email server while secretary of state, her family’s foundation and the advisers she keeps. The Clinton Foundation has been treated like an adjunct of the campaign as questions continue to swirl. Polls have suggested voters are not paying attention to stories about the foundation, but whether that holds is an open question.”
Well that explains their lack of coverage; the polls don’t indicate it’s hurting her, so why run it? They should take that little “All the news that’s fit to print” slogan off the front page and replace it with their actual policy “All the good news about the Democratic Party that’s fit to print.”