Hillary Is Not Happening, You guys

I’ve been saying it for months – I just don’t see Hillary Clinton being the Democrat nominee in 2016. Most people thought I was crazy (Oh, no – Hillary is inevitable) but look at these latest headlines:

GOP accused of ‘quiet attack’ on Hillary’s age…

MAG: She might not even survive primary! (Yup)

Socialist snapping at her heels…

Foundation raked in millions — of taxpayer dollars…

Larry Flynt Endorses Hillary…

AP POLL: Decisive majority of Americans view Clinton as dishonest…

Don’t forget that MSNBC poll from a few weeks back – which is still active! – with 100K+ votes showing 87% of voters do not plan to vote for HRC:


I keep asking, where’s the big groundswell of support for Hillary? She’s just stumbling along, hobbled each week by new scandals popping up, adding to the others that aren’t conveniently going away.

And why aren’t these scandals conveniently going away? Because the people who control the narrative (regrettably still the MSM) do not want Hilldog to be their candidate.

And so she won’t be.

So forgive me if I don’t spend a lot of time on all the latest shoes to drop on Hillary’s myriad of scandals. I just don’t think this charade is worth my time.

Six Officers Indicted in Freddie Gray Case – Now What?

State’s Attorney Marilyn Mosby (the youngest Chief Prosecutor in a US major city) announced Friday that all six Baltimore police officers involved in the arrest of Freddie Gray, have been charged criminally.

Via the Baltimore Sun, “Mosby’s announcement on the steps of the War Memorial Building was greeted with cheers and applause.”

Officer Caesar Goodson Jr., 45, who was the driver of a police van that carried Gray through the streets of Baltimore, was charged with second-degree murder, manslaughter, second-degree assault, two vehicular manslaughter charges and misconduct in office. A man who answered the phone at Goodson’s home declined to comment and hung up the phone.

Officer William Porter, 25, was charged with involuntary manslaughter, second-degree assault and misconduct in office.

Lt. Brian Rice, 41, was charged with involuntary manslaughter, second-degree assault and misconduct in office.

Sgt. Alicia White, 30, was charged with involuntary manslaughter, second-degree assault and misconduct in office.

Officer Edward Nero, 29, was charged with second-degree assault and misconduct in office.

Officer Garrett Miller, 26, was charged with second-degree assault, misconduct in office and false imprisonment.

If convicted of all charges, Goodson would face up to 63 years in prison. Rice would face up to 30 years and Porter, Nero, Miller and White would face up to 20 years.

Warrants were issued for the arrest of all six officers. It wasn’t immediately clear where the officers were Friday morning.

Perhaps the most significant finding in the indictment is that there was no probable cause for the arrest. The knife that the officers found on Gray was not a switchblade, which is illegal to conceal-carry in Maryland. (But perhaps the officers thought it was.)

Another problematic aspect of the arrest was the failure to secure the prisoner with a seat-belt in the paddy-wagon, as required by the Baltimore Police Department.

Famed Baltimore defense attorney Warren Brown said of Mosby  in the NY Daily News, yesterday, “she’s in an unenviable position. This city will burn if she doesn’t indict. Her career would be over. But looking at what we know so far, I just don’t see an indictable offense.”

Brown supported Mosby’s opponent in her upset election last November but said he has great respect for the Democrat, who is  married to Baltimore City Councilman Nick Mosby.

“I feel sorry for her almost. She’s a good person, and she is trying to seize upon integrity in every decision she makes. But if she makes the decision to not indict, she’ll have to have a jet waiting at the airport. It’s a shame,” he said.

Brown predicted Mosby will take the case to the grand jury as quickly as possible.

“I think she’ll put everything in there and try to usher them to involuntary manslaughter,” he said.

But that is not what happened. What happened seems reminiscent of what happened in the George Zimmerman case in Florida, where a craven DA took the weak case to appease an angry mob.

And now that all six officers have been indicted in what has become a major cause celebre in Baltimore – a city that is 68% black – is not a change of venue going to be required for justice to prevail?

I think it would be next to impossible for there to be a fair trial in the city of Baltimore, where one of the witnesses has already had his life threatened. Donta Allen, who shared some of the ride with Freddie Gray in the Police Transport Van has already changed his story drastically.

Whatever the outcome ends up being for these six officers – their lives are essentially over.

On The Kelly File, last night, a friend of two of the officers who were involved in the arrest, vouched for the men’s character. He said his friends were being “thrown under the bus.”


CNN interviewed a source close to one of the arresting officers, yesterday, who had a plausible explanation for the officer’s failure to buckle Freddie Gray into his seat.

Cameras recorded parts of his arrest. Gray, handcuffed and screaming in apparent pain, was lifted off the ground by officers, who dragged him to the van. He was conscious and talking.

At one point after it left, the van stopped and Gray was placed in shackles.

“Freddie Gray was shackled because he was irate. He was irate; he was angry. He was moving around in the wagon so they were asked — the arresting officers were asked to leg shackle him, and that’s when the wagon pulled over,” the source said Wednesday.

The source also said Gray was not seat-belted in the van, and gave an explanation as to why.

“They didn’t want to reach over him. You were in a tight space in the paddy wagon. He’s already irate. He still has his teeth and he still has his saliva. So, in order to seat belt somebody you have to get in their personal space. They’re not going to get in his personal space if he’s already irate.

“Most people in the paddy wagon aren’t seat belted in. They are just now starting to seat belt as a result of this case,” the source said.

The source said that “the officer believes Gray was injured while he was being arrested, but before he was put inside a police van. The officer does not know how Gray was hurt.”

 Meanwhile, via Drudge:


Baltimore braces for two large marches this weekend…

And now this, via Weasel Zippers:

#Baltimore Police Sergeant Warns Officers Being Challenged In Street, “It’s About To Get Ugly”

The Council Has Spoken!! Our Watcher’s Council Results


The Council has spoken, the votes have been cast, and the results are in for this week’s Watcher’s Council match up.

“In this country, the federal government can do pretty much whatever it wants to.” —Rep. Pete Stark (D-Calif.)

“Congress has not unlimited powers … but only those specifically enumerated.”—Thomas Jefferson

“The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.” —Tenth Amendment, U.S. Constitution

“All laws which are repugnant to the Constitution are null and void.” —Marbury v. Madison (1803)

Right Planet

This week’s winning essay,The Right PlanetThe Rightful Remedy: Nullification is a fascinating exploration of a doctrine that may be an important part of the news in the near future – nullification. Here’s a slice:

So just what is nullification? It is the idea that a State or States have the right to nullify, or refuse to enforce, any federal law that is clearly unconstitutional. This is not some new and novel “legal theory.” It is the method recommended by the Framers to use when the federal government usurps power.

Naturally, nullification is quite controversial and utterly repugnant to those who champion big government and the centralization of ever more power in Washington, D.C.

A quick Google search brings up this WikiPedia definition for Nullification:

Nullification, in United States constitutional history, is a legal theory that a state has the right to nullify, or invalidate, any federal law which that state has deemed unconstitutional. The theory of nullification has never been legally upheld by federal courts.

After reading WikiPedia’s take on nullification, I’m reminded of a quote by Thomas Jefferson: “The Constitution is a mere thing of wax in the hands of the judiciary which they may shape and twist into any form they please.”

It was Thomas Jefferson who wrote (emphasis added), “That a nullification, by those sovereignties [States] of all unauthorized acts done under the color of that instrument [the Constitution] is the rightful remedy.” Thomas Jefferson introduced the term “nullification” in the Kentucky Resolutions of 1798. James Madison wrote in the Virginia Resolutions of 1798 that the States are “duty bound to resist” when the federal government violates the Constitution.

Thomas E. Woods, Jr., author of the book Nullification, elaborates:

But Jefferson didn’t invent the idea. Federalist supporters of the Constitution at the Virginia ratifying convention of 1788 assured Virginians that they would be “exonerated” should the federal government attempt to impose “any supplementary condition” upon them – in other words, if it tried to exercise a power over and above the ones the states had delegated to it. Patrick Henry and later Jefferson himself elaborated on these safeguards that Virginians had been assured of at their ratifying convention.


As Jefferson warned, if the federal government is allowed to hold a monopoly on determining the extent of its own powers, we have no right to be surprised when it keeps discovering new ones. If the federal government has the exclusive right to judge the extent of its own powers, it will continue to grow – regardless of elections, the separation of powers, and other much-touted limits on government power. In his Report of 1800, Madison reminded Virginians and Americans at large that the judicial branch was not infallible, and that some remedy must be found for those cases in which all three branches of the federal government exceed their constitutional limits.

A mere 10 years following the ratification of the U.S. Constitution, the second president of the United States, John Adams, signed into the law the Alien and Sedition Acts. The Sedition Act made it a punishable crime to criticize the government or its officials. People were actually put in prison for merely being critical of the president or Congress—including Matthew Lyon, a Vermont congressman who had fought for independence during the Revolutionary War! Is this not a grossly unconstitutional act that violates the very letter of the “free speech” clause in the First Amendment? You be the judge. The onerous Sedition Act is what prompted the Kentucky and Virginia Resolutions of 1798, also known as the “Principles of 98.”

The most common rebuttal by those who oppose the use of nullification is to cite the “supremacy clause” from the U.S. Constitution (Article VI, clause 2). A good illustration of this argument can be found in a 2011 article that appeared at TalkingPointsMemo.com.

Via TPM:

“The concept of states’ rights mostly clings to one interpretation of the Tenth Amendment, which says that “the powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.” Tenthers would say this means a state doesn’t have to follow federal laws the state believes exceed the federal government’s constitutional authority.”

“But this pretty clearly goes against the Supremacy Clause of the Constitution, in Article 6″ :

This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding.

What is being implied by the above excerpt from the TPM article is a sentiment that has been echoed by others opposed to the idea of nullification—namely, that we cannot have the States picking and choosing which laws they want to obey or it would lead to anarchy. (Of course, unless it is liberals doing the nullifying … like nullifying federal marijuana prohibition statutes.) Actually, there is a lot of truth in that line of thinking. But it ignores a very important point that is clearly spelled out in the “supremacy clause.”

So, let’s just take a closer look at just what the “supremacy clause” says (emphasis added):

This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof … shall be the supreme law of the land …

The key point in the “supremacy clause” that is consistently ignored by those who favor giving the federal government ever more power over the States is the phrase “in pursuance thereof .” What does “in pursuance thereof” mean? It means “the carrying out of a plan or action” (pursuance) “of the thing just mentioned” (thereof).

What was just mentioned?


More at the link.

In our non-Council category, the winner was Stacey McCain at The Other McCain with – Anarchy In Baltimore submitted by The Watcher. When I first read this, my first impression was that it was one of the better commentary pieces written on the subject. Two Rebel Yells and a bottle of Georgia corn, Stace!

Here are this week’s full results. Only the Razor, Ask Marion and the Independent Sentinel were unable to vote vote, but none were affected and/or subject to the mandatory 2/3 vote penalty:

Council Winners

Non-Council Winners

See you next week!

Make sure to tune in every Monday for the Watcher’s Forum. and every  Tuesday morning, when we reveal the weeks’ nominees for Weasel of the Week!

And remember, every Wednesday, the Council has its weekly contest with the members nominating two posts each, one written by themselves and one written by someone from outside the group for consideration by the whole Council. The votes are cast by the Council, and the results are posted onFriday morning.

It’s a weekly magazine of some of the best stuff written in the blogosphere, and you won’t want to miss it...or any of the other fantabulous Watcher’s Council content.

And don’t forget to like us on Facebook and follow us on Twitter..’cause we’re cool like that, y’know?