| Media Search: |
Hillary Clinton 2016 Super PAC Sending Surrogate To South Carolina
Hillary Clinton 2016 Super PAC Sending Surrogate To South Carolina.
By: Modi Mayavati
See the rest here:
Hillary Clinton 2016 Super PAC Sending Surrogate To South Carolina - Video
Hillary Clinton may not be ready to throw her hat into the ring of the 2016 presidential race, but Ready for Hillary, her super PAC, is busy laying the groundwork for a possible bid. The super PAC is sending Clinton surrogate and ex-Michigan Gov. Jennifer Granholm to South Carolina later this month to raise money for the states Democratic organization.
The Blue Jamboree fundraiser, hosted by the Charleston County Democratic Party, kicks off Sept. 27 and costs from $10 to $250 a head. The events organizers requested Granholm to headline the fundraiser, according to MSNBC. Granholm is going to give the South Carolina Democratic Party a $5,000 check at the event on behalf of Ready for Hillary. Once that check is cashed, the super PAC would have raised $10,000 for the state party, which is up to the legal limit.The Jamboree is the biggest Democratic political event in South Carolina, and Ready for Hillary is expected to use its huge mailing list to get Clinton supporters to attend the fundraiser in the important early primary state.
Ready for Hillary is proud to support the efforts of the South Carolina Democratic Party in this years election and beyond, and we will continue to channel the energy and organization around a potential Hillary 2016 candidacy to help SCDP and 2014 candidates, Ready for Hillary Communications Director Seth Bringman told MSNBC.
In 2008, the then-New York senator and former first lady was walloped by then-Illinois Sen. Barack Obama in South Carolina, where Obama more than doubled Clintons vote percentage, 55 percent to 26 percent.
Read the original:
Hillary Clinton 2016 Super PAC Sending Surrogate To South Carolina
Former United States Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton, has called for a global compact on surveillance and the use of collected data, saying the US isnt the only country that does it and American technology companies are unfairly targeted for the governments actions.
The US government doesnt use information for commercial purposes, while other countries do, Clinton said.
We need to make it clear to other countries that our technology companies are not part of our government, and that we have more legal processes than any other country that Im aware of covering government requests for information, Clinton said during her appearance at the Nexenta OpenSDx Summit, a technology conference in San Francisco.
The threat of electronic spying was so great in some countries that when traveling as a US official she couldnt carry any electronics, she said.
Every time I went to countries like China or Russia, I mean, we couldnt take our computers, we couldnt take our personal devices, we couldnt take anything off the plane, because theyre so good, they would penetrate them in a minute, Clinton said. She and her staff removed the batteries and left the devices on their plane.
According to Ovumresearch, though she wants to see an international agreement on the collection and use of data, Clinton acknowledged that would take long and careful effort.
Clinton, who is pondering a run for president in 2016 and is widely considered the likely Democratic nominee, said the US wasnt perfect on the surveillance front, especially when it was scrambling around after the Sept. 11, 2001, terror attacks.
Theres no doubt we may have gone too far in a number of areas, and that those have to be rethought and we have to rebalance, Clinton said. The [National Security Agency] didnt, so far as we know, cross legal lines, but they came right up and sat on them.
But she said some tradeoffs have always been necessary. Our privacy and our security are in a necessary, inevitable tension, Clinton said.
Clinton also voiced support for immigration reform and H-1B visas for skilled workers, both hot-button issues for a tech audience, but warned that IT shouldnt use immigration to avoid hiring locally.
See the original post:
Clinton calls for global compact on data gathering
SEN. RAND PAUL raises an interesting question:
When has Hillary Clinton ever been right on foreign policy?
The valkyrie of the Democratic Party says she urged President Obama to do more to aid Syrian rebels years ago. And last summer, she supported air strikes on Bashar Assads regime.
Had we followed her advice and crippled Assads army, ISIS might be in Damascus today, butchering Christians and Alawites and aiding the Islamic State in Iraq in overrunning Baghdad.
But if the folly of attacking Assads army and weakening its resistance to ISIS terrorists is apparent to everyone this summer, why were Clinton, Obama and Secretary of State John Kerry oblivious to this reality just a year ago?
Consider the rest of Hillarys record. Her most crucial decision as Senator came in 2002 when she voted to invade Iraq. She now concedes it was the greatest mistake of her Senate career.
She voted against the surge in 2006, but confided to Defense Secretary Bob Gates that she did so to maintain her political viability for 2008. This is statesmanship? Not voting your convictions about what is best for your country at war, so as not to antagonize the liberals in the Iowa caucuses?
In 2009, Hillary presented a reset button to Vladimir Putins foreign minister. In 2011, she supported U.S. air strikes to bring down Col. Gadhafi and celebrated in Tripoli when he was overthrown and lynched. How did that work out? Libya is today a hellhole of murder and mayhem and Islamists are threatening a takeover. Who did Hillary think would rise when Gadhafi fell?
Hillarys failure to anticipate or prevent the Benghazi massacre and her role in the botched cover-up, all concede, are burdens she will carry into the primaries in 2016, should she run.
Where, then, has Hillary exhibited the acumen to suggest she would be a wise and savvy steward of U.S. foreign policy in a disintegrating world?
Go here to read the rest:
Pat Buchanan Has Hillary Clinton ever been right on foreign policy?
Fifth Amendment,amendment (1791) to the Constitution of the United States, part of the Bill of Rights, that articulates procedural safeguards designed to protect the rights of the criminally accused and to secure life, liberty, and property. For the text of the Fifth Amendment, see below.
Similar to the First Amendment, the Fifth Amendment is divided into five clauses, representing five distinct, yet related, rights. The first clause specifies that [n]o person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger. This grand jury provision requires a body to make a formal presentment or indictment of a person accused of committing a crime against the laws of the federal government. The proceeding is not a trial but rather an ex parte hearing (i.e., one in which only one party, the prosecution, presents evidence) to determine if the government has enough evidence to carry a case to trial. If the grand jury finds sufficient evidence that an offense was committed, it issues an indictment, which then permits a trial. The portion of the clause pertaining to exceptions in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia is a corollary to Article I, Section 8, which grants Congress the power [t]o make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces. Combined, they justify the use of military courts for the armed forces, thus denying military personnel the same procedural rights afforded civilians.
The second section is commonly referred to as the double jeopardy clause, and it protects citizens against a second prosecution after an acquittal or a conviction, as well as against multiple punishments for the same offense. Caveats to this provision include permissions to try persons for civil and criminal aspects of an offense, conspiring to commit as well as to commit an offense, and separate trials for acts that violate laws of both the federal and state governments, although federal laws generally suppress prosecution by the national government if a person is convicted of the same crime in a state proceeding.
The third section is commonly referred to as the self-incrimination clause, and it protects persons accused of committing a crime from being forced to testify against themselves. In the U.S. judicial system a person is presumed innocent, and it is the responsibility of the state (or national government) to prove guilt. Like other pieces of evidence, once presented, words can be used powerfully against a person; however, words can be manipulated in a way that many other objects cannot. Consequently, information gained from sobriety tests, police lineups, voice samples, and the like is constitutionally permissible while evidence gained from compelled testimony is not. As such, persons accused of committing crimes are protected against themselves or, more accurately, how their words may be used against them. The clause, therefore, protects a key aspect of the system as well as the rights of the criminally accused.
The fourth section is commonly referred to as the due process clause. It protects life, liberty, and property from impairment by the federal government. (The Fourteenth Amendment, ratified in 1868, protects the same rights from infringement by the states.) Chiefly concerned with fairness and justice, the due process clause seeks to preserve and protect fundamental rights and ensure that any deprivation of life, liberty, or property occurs in accordance with procedural safeguards. As such, there are both substantive and procedural considerations associated with the due process clause, and this has influenced the development of two separate tracks of due process jurisprudence: procedural and substantive. Procedural due process pertains to the rules, elements, or methods of enforcementthat is, its procedural aspects. Consider the elements of a fair trial and related Sixth Amendment protections. As long as all relevant rights of the accused are adequately protectedas long as the rules of the game, so to speak, are followedthen the government may, in fact, deprive a person of his life, liberty, or property. But what if the rules are not fair? What if the law itselfregardless of how it is enforcedseemingly deprives rights? This raises the controversial spectre of substantive due process rights. It is not inconceivable that the content of the law, regardless of how it is enforced, is itself repugnant to the Constitution because it violates fundamental rights. Over time, the Supreme Court has had an on-again, off-again relationship with liberty-based due process challenges, but it has generally abided by the principle that certain rights are implicit in the concept of ordered liberty (Palko v. Connecticut [1937]), and as such they are afforded constitutional protection. This, in turn, has led to the expansion of the meaning of the term liberty. What arguably began as freedom from restraint has transformed into a virtual cornucopia of rights reasonably related to enumerated rights, without which neither liberty nor justice would exist. For example, the right to an abortion, established in Roe v. Wade (1973), grew from privacy rights, which emerged from the penumbras of the constitution.
The rest is here:
Fifth Amendment (United States Constitution ...