Watch a top lawyer rewrite Hillary's loyalty pledge

Taking a cue from the good Chairman Mao, Hillary Clinton is asking voters to sign a "loyalty pledge" stating they will vote for her in the upcoming election.  The whole thing reeks of desperation thanks to the lumbering hospice/zombie campaign of  Bernie "Weekend at Bernie's" Sanders, who is slowly overtaking Hillary in the primaries.

When I read the pledge, it struck me how woefully short and underwritten it is.  After all, a pledge is a kind of contract, but this one is bereft of many important contractual details.  As a Harvard Law School-trained attorney, like Obama and Ted Cruz (hopefully a little more like the latter than the former), I thought I might help and give some tips on what Hillary's pledge should look like.

Hillary's contract should have the following terms:

Consideration.  In order for a contract to be valid, both sides need some form of "consideration," or benefit.  Hillary's consideration is obvious: getting the signer's vote so she can replace Mustapha Mond Obama as world controller.  But what is Hillary giving in return?  She needs to promise something like "better lives for women" or "feelings of empowerment for women" or "women achieving like they never have before" so the signer will have consideration.  Of course, in the unlikely event that the signer is a man, he can always get a sex change operation to enjoy the full benefits of the arrangement.

No implied warranty of fitness to be president.  Mrs. Clinton needs a provision stating basically that she isn't promising anything, to give the signer as little ground as possible to sue her.  It should be in all caps, as is traditionally done, and go something like this:

MRS. CLINTON MAKES NO WARRANTY, WHETHER EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, ABOUT WHETHER SHE IS QUALIFIED TO BE PRESIDENT, WHETHER SHE IS QUALIFIED TO RUN THE LARGEST FREE-MARKET ECONOMY, WHETHER SHE IS QUALIFED TO HANDLE EMERGENCY CALLS FROM BENGHAZI AT 2 AM, OR WHETHER ANY STATEMENT SHE SPEAKS EVER HAS A FACTUAL BASIS THAT CORRESPONDS WITH THE SUBJECTIVE TERM CALLED "REALITY," INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO ANY IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF HONESTY, DECENCY, OR INTEGRITY, AND MRS. CLINTON DOES NOT PROMISE THAT HER PRESIDENCY WILL BE UNINTERRUPTED OR ERROR-FREE.  YOU BEAR THE ENTIRE RISK FOR THE RESULTS OF HER PRESIDENCY SHOULD HER TENURE PROVE DEFECTIVE.

Force Majeure.  The contract needs what's called a "Force Majeure" clause, which states that if before the election Bill Clinton is caught forcing himself on another woman in a major "French" way, the contract will still be binding, and the signer will still be required to vote for Mrs. Clinton, even if she pretends the incident didn't happen or if she blames a right-wing conspiracy for it.

Governing law.  Every good contract should state under what laws the contract will be interpreted.  Usually it's the laws of a specific state, but Mrs. Clinton would be wise to select the laws of Karl Marx's epic work Das Kapital instead.

Act of God.  Contracts typically have clauses excusing the signers' performance because of "acts of God" beyond the control of the signers.  Mrs. Clinton probably doesn't believe in God but needs an out, so she should have a clause excusing performance based on "Acts of Climate."  If the weather gets warmer or colder, or stays the same, Mrs. Clinton should be excused from having to perform on any of her campaign promises because of climate change.

Release and Indemnification.  The contract needs both release and indemnification provisions, which are often confused.  A release provision states that under no circumstances will the signer sue Mrs. Clinton.  So if Mrs. Clinton, once elected, raises taxes, destroys the remnants of our health care system, or sells nuclear weapons to Iran, a release will prevent the signer from suing Mrs. Clinton for the harm that results to the signer from her actions.

An indemnification clause, on the other hand, states that the signer will protect Mrs. Clinton from liability from other third parties.  So if Mrs. Clinton gets elected, and we go into an economic depression, Mrs. Clinton, instead of being held responsible, can place the blame on signers who are small businesspeople, the "rich" (whoever that is), white people (you know who you are – mostly), and men (again, you know who you are – mostly).  These signers will agree to "take responsibility" for everything that goes wrong with her administration and be blamed for all of it.

Binding arbitration.  The contract should state that disputes should be decided via binding arbitration.  To be fair, Mrs. Clinton should select a pool of judges, such as Huma Abedin, Anthony Weiner, Cheryl Mills, and the late Vince Foster, and the signer should have the right in turn to select one of these arbiters to deliver binding arbitration between the parties.

Non-disclosure clause.  The contract needs a non-disclosure provision that states that if the signer learns anything negative about Hillary Clinton, whether it be revelations about her unsecured email practices or favors given to foreign donors or breaking of other federal laws, the signer will not talk about the matter with other voters and attempt to influence them. 

Non-compete clause.  The contract needs a non-compete clause, which states that if the signer breaks out of the contract, she will be legally unable to vote for a competing candidate for a certain period of time, usually until after the election.

Let's crowdsource this some more!  All you lawyers out there, what provisions would you want in a contract with Hillary Clinton?

This article was written by Ed Straker, senior writer of NewsMachete.com, the conservative news site.

Taking a cue from the good Chairman Mao, Hillary Clinton is asking voters to sign a "loyalty pledge" stating they will vote for her in the upcoming election.  The whole thing reeks of desperation thanks to the lumbering hospice/zombie campaign of  Bernie "Weekend at Bernie's" Sanders, who is slowly overtaking Hillary in the primaries.

When I read the pledge, it struck me how woefully short and underwritten it is.  After all, a pledge is a kind of contract, but this one is bereft of many important contractual details.  As a Harvard Law School-trained attorney, like Obama and Ted Cruz (hopefully a little more like the latter than the former), I thought I might help and give some tips on what Hillary's pledge should look like.

Hillary's contract should have the following terms:

Consideration.  In order for a contract to be valid, both sides need some form of "consideration," or benefit.  Hillary's consideration is obvious: getting the signer's vote so she can replace Mustapha Mond Obama as world controller.  But what is Hillary giving in return?  She needs to promise something like "better lives for women" or "feelings of empowerment for women" or "women achieving like they never have before" so the signer will have consideration.  Of course, in the unlikely event that the signer is a man, he can always get a sex change operation to enjoy the full benefits of the arrangement.

No implied warranty of fitness to be president.  Mrs. Clinton needs a provision stating basically that she isn't promising anything, to give the signer as little ground as possible to sue her.  It should be in all caps, as is traditionally done, and go something like this:

MRS. CLINTON MAKES NO WARRANTY, WHETHER EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, ABOUT WHETHER SHE IS QUALIFIED TO BE PRESIDENT, WHETHER SHE IS QUALIFIED TO RUN THE LARGEST FREE-MARKET ECONOMY, WHETHER SHE IS QUALIFED TO HANDLE EMERGENCY CALLS FROM BENGHAZI AT 2 AM, OR WHETHER ANY STATEMENT SHE SPEAKS EVER HAS A FACTUAL BASIS THAT CORRESPONDS WITH THE SUBJECTIVE TERM CALLED "REALITY," INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO ANY IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF HONESTY, DECENCY, OR INTEGRITY, AND MRS. CLINTON DOES NOT PROMISE THAT HER PRESIDENCY WILL BE UNINTERRUPTED OR ERROR-FREE.  YOU BEAR THE ENTIRE RISK FOR THE RESULTS OF HER PRESIDENCY SHOULD HER TENURE PROVE DEFECTIVE.

Force Majeure.  The contract needs what's called a "Force Majeure" clause, which states that if before the election Bill Clinton is caught forcing himself on another woman in a major "French" way, the contract will still be binding, and the signer will still be required to vote for Mrs. Clinton, even if she pretends the incident didn't happen or if she blames a right-wing conspiracy for it.

Governing law.  Every good contract should state under what laws the contract will be interpreted.  Usually it's the laws of a specific state, but Mrs. Clinton would be wise to select the laws of Karl Marx's epic work Das Kapital instead.

Act of God.  Contracts typically have clauses excusing the signers' performance because of "acts of God" beyond the control of the signers.  Mrs. Clinton probably doesn't believe in God but needs an out, so she should have a clause excusing performance based on "Acts of Climate."  If the weather gets warmer or colder, or stays the same, Mrs. Clinton should be excused from having to perform on any of her campaign promises because of climate change.

Release and Indemnification.  The contract needs both release and indemnification provisions, which are often confused.  A release provision states that under no circumstances will the signer sue Mrs. Clinton.  So if Mrs. Clinton, once elected, raises taxes, destroys the remnants of our health care system, or sells nuclear weapons to Iran, a release will prevent the signer from suing Mrs. Clinton for the harm that results to the signer from her actions.

An indemnification clause, on the other hand, states that the signer will protect Mrs. Clinton from liability from other third parties.  So if Mrs. Clinton gets elected, and we go into an economic depression, Mrs. Clinton, instead of being held responsible, can place the blame on signers who are small businesspeople, the "rich" (whoever that is), white people (you know who you are – mostly), and men (again, you know who you are – mostly).  These signers will agree to "take responsibility" for everything that goes wrong with her administration and be blamed for all of it.

Binding arbitration.  The contract should state that disputes should be decided via binding arbitration.  To be fair, Mrs. Clinton should select a pool of judges, such as Huma Abedin, Anthony Weiner, Cheryl Mills, and the late Vince Foster, and the signer should have the right in turn to select one of these arbiters to deliver binding arbitration between the parties.

Non-disclosure clause.  The contract needs a non-disclosure provision that states that if the signer learns anything negative about Hillary Clinton, whether it be revelations about her unsecured email practices or favors given to foreign donors or breaking of other federal laws, the signer will not talk about the matter with other voters and attempt to influence them. 

Non-compete clause.  The contract needs a non-compete clause, which states that if the signer breaks out of the contract, she will be legally unable to vote for a competing candidate for a certain period of time, usually until after the election.

Let's crowdsource this some more!  All you lawyers out there, what provisions would you want in a contract with Hillary Clinton?

This article was written by Ed Straker, senior writer of NewsMachete.com, the conservative news site.