In today’s hearing, the Democrats' shameless effort to deliberately and wholly distract attention from Hillary’s felonious behavior with respect to emailgate and AG Lynch’s consistently stonewalling relevant emailgate queries were on full display. It was sickening..

The primary purpose of the Republican committee members’ questions to the AG was to determine whether or not there is a difference between “extreme carelessness” and “gross negligence”, and whether or not “intent” is necessary to prove that US Code Section 793 was violated.  Asked again and again what the legal distinction was, AG Lynch routinely deferred to Comey and her “team “ of career Justice Department attorneys. After all, she’s only the Attorney General. Why would she be expected to answer such a legal question?

Committee Democrats' deflecting attention from Hillary’s “extreme carelessness” by pretentiously asserting their caring about “more important” issues like the death of black victims in Louisiana and Minnesota as well as the assassination of five Dallas police officers was their painfully self-serving way of dodging the burning issue of Hillary's lawlessness and electability--the Rule of Law obviously of considerably less concern to them.

Once again, the ideological lines have been drawn, and there is zero interest on the part of the Democrats to uphold their oath of office and to honestly, objectively address Hillary’s lawlessness. 

Who suffers by this charade and gross irresponsibility: nothing less than the Rule of Law and the Constitution of the United States.  And without either, there can be no equal justice under the law, no Liberty, no republic, and, most certainly, no chance for restoring public trust in government.  

In short, we, once citizens of America but now subjects of Leviathan, have again been duped, dismissed and utterly ignored.  

Get this through your heads: this is no longer a constitutional republic; this is now very clearly a country where the rule of Man, not of Law, is preeminent.

Welcome to the Banana Republic of America—clearly NOT the country for which  I and my veteran friends fought and died, and certainly not the country for which those thousands of patriots who preceded us were maimed and died in her defense.

We must now look to our Founders for solace, yes, but also for their wise counsel and remedies. Those Founder-sanctioned and inherently rightful remedies are Civil Disobedience to express our unwillingness to submit to intolerable acts of government, State Nullification of unconstitutional federal acts in order to restore the State-Federal balance of power, Secession to defend constitutional order on at least the State level, or Rebellion in the face of tyranny. 

The choice before us couldn't be more stark: to restore our constitutional republic--while we are still able to do so--or to accept submission to Leviathan.

What will YOU choose?

"If the federal government should overpass the just bounds of its authority and make a tyrannical use of its powers, the people, whose creature it is, must appeal to the standard they have formed, and take such measures to redress the injury done to the Constitution as the exigency may suggest and prudence justify." Alexander Hamilton

I did some digging to get a somewhat cogent answer to that question, and , in brief, here is what I found so far:

First, while there is a consensus that there are sufficient grounds for the FBI to recommend indictment, the chances of the Lynch-Obama duumverate permitting indictment is, at best and for purely political reasons, slim.

Second, if the charges are sufficiently egregious (multiple felonies), and if the Justice Department does not refer the matter to a grand jury for review and possible prosecution, it is generally believed that there will be electrifying high-profile resignations from and sensitive leaks by the FBI, the intelligence community and the Justice Department which, presumably, would adversely affect Hillary’s ability to win at the convention or in a general election.  

Third, from a constitutional standpoint there is no legal reason for Hillary to withdraw her candidacy before the convention, and Hillary, with the assistance of the media, would draw upon “the court of public opinion” to get elected and to see her through to inauguration in January.  (Note: the Constitution only lists qualifications for a president, not disqualifications; adding ex post facto disqualifiers would be unconstitutional.)

Fourth, since it’s a near certainty that Hillary will not withdraw even if indicted before the convention,  a “brokered convention”  might well ensue which could force her out. Though her delegates are committed to supporting her on the first round of balloting, the 712 super delegates could easily bolt and rally around another candidate if they felt the chances of her election had been seriously jeopardized. Party loyalty could well trump loyalty to Hillary.

Fifth, if Hillary is indicted, there is no constitutional requirement for her to withdraw. Period.

Sixth, if Hillary is indicted, wins the general election and delays the trial until after inauguration in January, per Art II Sec 4 only impeachment by a majority in the House and conviction by 2/3 vote in the Senate can remove her from office. (Note: indictment is not an impeachable offense;  and an impeachable offense is not necessarily an indictable offense; impeachment is a political process.) And if she’s not convicted by the Senate, which is the most likely scenario, Hillary skates free—at least while she’s president. If she leaves office before the 5-year statute of limitation which begins ticking from date of indictment is met--in other words, she’s not elected to a second term--she can still be tried. (Note: for terrorism and financial crimes the statute of limitations is 8 and 10 years respectively.)

Seventh, a sitting president can order the AG to drop all charges, or to not either pursue prosecution or to enforce any sentence imposed. Such an action would surely place into question her constitutional responsibility to “faithfully execute the laws” of the United States and would be, therefore, an impeachable offense.

Eighth, since there is no limit on a president’s pardoning authority, but as no president or governor has ever attempted to pardon himself/herself in the past, Hillary’s pardoning herself would be unprecedented and could easily be construed by the public and Congress as morally—not legally—reprehensible.  The repugnancy of a self-pardon might well be sufficient for an otherwise reluctant Congress to impeach, try and remove her  from office.

Conclusions: my guess is that a narcissistic Hillary Clinton would be more than willing to put the country through the wringer to achieve political power--public interest, traditional standards of rectitude and moral conduct be damned.

If nothing else, these unseemly developments should spark renewed interest in an Art V Convention of States to tighten up qualifications for presidential candidates, to say nothing of limiting the constitutional authority of an increasingly imperial Executive Branch. These acrid developments should also both incur the moral outrage of the People and encourage individual States to  review their election standards as well.

If the charges are as substantive, well-founded and egregious as many on both the left and right agree they are, and if 1) Hillary wins the general election and, 2)  Congress abdicates is constitutional responsibility to impeach and remove her from office, then all bets are off as to the viability of this once venerable constitutional republic. If massive marches on the White House to force her resignation are not attempted or don't succeed, then secession or rebellion can be Americans' only salvation.