Monday, July 25, 2016

For Democrats It's Back to the Future: Chicago '68 Coming to Philadelphia 2016





Not since 1968 and the massive demonstrations against the Vietnam war during the Democratic convention in Chicago will Democrats see the kind of  anger, resentment and passion they will see directed against them by Sanders supporters and more specifically against Hillary Clinton who has become the Ma Barker,Imelda Marcos and Eva Peron of American politics for her corrupting the democratic process in collusion with the DNC and a Banana Republic news media to steal and rig the Democratic nomination. 

The demonstrations  and protests promise to be massive and disruptive against what amounted to a Hillary Clinton-Debbie Wasserman-Schultz and DNC criminal enterprise to steal the nomination from Bernie Sanders to make good on promises made to Clinton in 2008 in return for not contesting the nomination against Obama. Its already started to come back to haunt them.

It was going to happen even before a Wikileaks email dump confirmed that Clinton, the DNC and the notorious Debby Wasserman-Schultz, their super delegates and just about everyone associated with the Democratic party establishment all the way down to Obama were part of what amounted to election fraud,rigging and collusion making them the most dishonest, corrupt, fraudulent collection of  Democrats overseeing the most dishonest election process since Boss Tweed rigged elections in New York in the 1850's.

There were going to be huge protests by Sanders supporters against Clinton anyway for the fraud and rigging of a nomination she never would have won otherwise. But the email dump by Wikileaks confirmed  how deeply politically corrupt the Democratic party was and how much in collusion with banana republic journalists at  MESSNBC, the usual collection of sycophants and cowards at CNN, the corrupt journalists at AP, The Hill,Politico and NY Times Hillary Clinton's campaign really was. 

Which explains why when anonymous superdelegates came out of the woodwork in Februrary to make unofficial declarations for the first time in political history for Clinton the news media not only didn't question what was going on they dishonestly added those unofficial declarations to Clinton's pledged delegate totals making the current collection of journalists at CNN,MSNBC,AP and others the most dishonest and politically corrupt the country has ever had. 

The corporate media was and is as opposed to Trump as to Sanders and ironically for the same basic reason: neither serves corporate interests. Trump can't be bought because of his money, Sanders can't be bought because of his integrity but they all know Clinton can be bought. And has been. And so the corporate media has been slanting coverage for Clinton in collusion with the DNC from the beginning.

The exposure of emails showing the depths of collusion between Clinton,the DNC and the news media with thousands more emails to come has created an even uglier situation for Democrats than they anticipated and has put them in a political quick sand which will continue to drag them down.And like real quick sand the more they struggle to get out of it the more it will drag them down.

Debbie Wasserman-Schultz' resignation as Chair of the DNC and her immediate hiring by Hillary Clinton as co-chair of her campaign re-enforces the reality that Hillary Clinton is a political criminal running a politically criminal enterprise and the DNC has been nothing more than her gang. And Donna Brazile who will replace Wasserman-Schultz is no better than she was. 

It was Brazile who, in 2008 when super delegates looked like they would go Clinton's way, announced she would quit the Democratic party if super delegates decided the nomination. And they never voted. Instead a backroom deal was cut between Obama and Clinton which included Clinton being named Secretary of State. But it also included promises made for 2016  that we've seen played out during the primaries. Sanders was the fly in the ointment they never anticipated but the Clinton campaign knew the fix would be in one way or another. It was why they were so confident,making statements from both Clinton and Robby Mook her campaign manager that there was no chance she wouldnt be the nominee. It was a confession. They knew the process was rigged for Clinton.

With Donna Brazile now acting as Chair, Clinton has the same dishonest ally she had in Baby Faced Wasserman-Schultz. Brazile railed against super delegates in 2008 but as part of the fix for 2016 supported super delegate declarations for Clinton that started back in February.

But the chickens are coming home to roost. Brazile said in 2008 that if super delegates decided the nomination she would quit the Democratic party. Sanders voters are going to do the same and all those statistics put out by the same colluding news outlets claiming a majority of Sanders voters will vote for Clinton is as dishonest and fabricated as their other coverage since January. Sanders voters and supporters despise Clinton and the DNC to such a degree they would rather go without food than vote for Clinton. 

And even Sanders anticipated support for Clinton won't change that. Everyone knows having run as a Democrat Sanders has no choice but to endorse her. Who else would he back? A 3rd party candidate when he has caucused with Democrats fur 25 years? 
  
But any attempt by Clinton supporters or the DNC to stifle or repress Sanders supporters expressing their disgust for Clinton  or their support for Sanders either inside the convention center or out is going to be met with the kind of resistance that will overshadow Clinton and anything the DNC does over the next three days. And if it gets really ugly Clinton and the DNC and for his part Obama who is actually the force behind all of it since the DNC marches to his orders, will be to blame. But that doesn't mean it has to be violent.

When people think of Chicago '68 they automatically think violence but the violence in '68 was caused by the Chicago police who initiated the violence in an attempt to silence or stifle demonstrators. They were ordered to do it by Mayor Richard Daly who didn't want the demonstrations to overshadow the convention. They got the opposite. And Democrats lost in November.

The DOJ investigation into the violence at the '68 convention called it " a police riot". It was the Chicago police out of control and violent not the demonstrators.

It is not likely Philadelphia's mayor will be that stupid even if Clinton and the DNC are, and so the protests will be loud, raucous, embarrassing for Clinton and the Democrats and will cripple their chances of winning in November, something the Democrats and Clinton richly deserve but there is no reason to think it will be violent.

Unless the DNC does some really stupid things and from what we've seen from their emails stupid is very possible. Like trying to  physically take way pro-Sanders signs from his delegates in which case Sanders  delegates will no doubt resist. Or even more stupid,  if the DNC tries to skip a roll call vote that Clinton cant win on the first ballot which would force super delegates to vote, the only way Clinton can get the nomination which will  certainly turn off viewers around the country including independent voters.

If the DNC tries to stop a roll call in order to avoid Clinton having to endure the national embarrassment of a prime time vote where Sanders will record almost as many pledged delegates as she did without securing the nomination on the first ballot, if they pass resolutions like trying to  nominate Clinton through acclimation which means through a voice vote where its agreed Clinton is the nominee and all votes are officially recorded for her (it was done dishonestly for Obama in 2008), if that happens and Sanders delegates are denied the chance to cast their 1900 votes (to Clinton's 2200+) on the first ballot all hell is going to break loose inside the convention center and out. Hopefully the DNC isnt that stupid. 

No matter which way it goes its going to be bad for the DNC, the Democratic party as a whole and Clinton specifically.

The convention promises to be everything Clinton and the DNC didnt want courtesy of Sanders voters who are not going to take Clinton and the DNC's corruption lying down. And all  of it is something Clinton, the Democratic party and the DNC brought on themselves with their blatant cheating, lying, election fraud, news media collusion distortion and manipulation. And with the emails confirming they are corrupt to the core they will probably pay for it dearly both in Philadelphia and in November.

Friday, July 22, 2016

For Obama and Nice (And Now Munich) a New Terrorist Attack But the Same Old Response.





(Note since publishing this piece this morning another terrorist attack, this time in a Munich shopping mall. Its still an ongoing situation but reports are multiple dead, some reports have the number at 15. And everything written below before this latest attack applies even more now)


Given the atrocities of the recent attack in Nice, it seemed appropriate to recall what was written here last November right after the Paris attacks,holding accountable those whose failures to act decisively both before Paris and after continued to allow these attacks and atrocities to happen thanks to their continued avoidance to do what needed to be done.

Unfortunately nothing has changed. And San Bernadino, Brussels, Istanbul, Orlando and now Nice is the result ( there is still no confirmation of who is behind the Munich attack).

There is and has been a steadfast refusal by Obama to send American troops to Iraq to destroy Isis. Instead we get the same worthless worn out cliches we've heard before when after the attack in Nice Obama issued a statement saying he "condemned the attack in the strongest possible terms". Which as everyone knows sent Isis doubling over with remorse and begging forgiveness. It didn't get them on the run either. Which,incredibly, is exactly what John Kerry, living in his unicorn fantasy world, claimed after the Nice attack. That Isis was on the run. Which was like telling someone who was just beaten and robbed that crime is going down.

After each attack we hear the same old broken record of how hard it is to stop these attacks from people who have been radicalized, how hard it is to prevent attacks by people who went to Iraq or Syria to be trained by Isis and then return to their respective countries to commit atrocities. And yet no one has given a thought to: what if there was no longer anywhere for these aspiring terrorists to go? What if there was nothing for them to return from? What if Isis was destroyed and there was nothing left of their fighters, or leaders, or web sites and computers or anything else? What if they were actually destroyed?

The deep thinkers that pop up on TV news shows say things like " but how do you defeat or destroy an ideology? How do you destroy an idea"? How about just destroy Isis first and worry about the ideas later? No one sat around during WWII worrying about how to destroy  Nazi ideology. They destroyed the Nazis. That seemed to do the trick.

That means destroying Isis with deeds not words and what a real leader would have done 3 years ago: send as many troops as necessary to destroy them. Which is what previous Secretaries of Defense had suggested before resigning over Obama's unwillingness to act and what former Chairman of the Joints Chiefs, General Dempsy testified to congress in 2014 he was prepared to do. It was Obama who wasn't.

The Nice attack is one more painful reminder of the failures of judgment, will and backbone that has been the hallmark of Obama's presidency in dealing with just about everything, a presidency Hillary Clinton, whose own failures as Secretary of State along with her personal failures thinks the country needs for four more years.

It's not that we don't know where Isis is. And it's not like we don't know how many there are - 30,000 fighters in Iraq. Sending troops to destroy them with air support already there means no more Isis fighters in Iraq,no more training facilities,no more  infrustructure,no more places in Iraq to attract and train and radicalize more terrorists to send back to their countries. But instead of sending troops Obama sends thoughts and prayers. And he sent them again after learning of the attack in Munich.

Today (July 22) it was announced in Paris  (before the Munich attack) that France would not send French ground troops to Iraq. Its understandable. If the U.S. is not going to lead, if the U.S. is not going to send troops it makes no sense for the French to go it alone.

In Sept 2014 then Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, General Dempsey testified in front of two congressional committees that he was prepared to recommend sending 90,000 U.S. troops to Iraq to defeat and destroy Isis once and for all. Obama said no.Which is probably why Dempsey is no longer Chairman of the Joint Chiefs. Its why three of Obama's Secretaries of Defense resigned.

Instead,Obama did what he does most and does best -- he lied to avoid having to do anything.

At a press conference the day after the Paris attacks (which was two days after he said Isis had been "contained ,a statement he made the morning of the attack) Obama said in answer to a question about sending ground troops to defeat Isis, "not one of my top military advisors has ever recommended sending ground troops to fight Isis". Perhaps Obama didnt consider the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs one of his top commanders. Or maybe he knew he could lie to a collection of incompetent dead fish posing as journalists and get away with it as he has many times before.

Since then Obama has authorized a few hundred commandos to be sent to fight Isis. Dempsey said 90,000. Dempsey's number makes sense. With 30,000 Isis fighters in Iraq you send in overwhelming force which makes it safer for the troops going in and accomplishes the mission faster.  And that number doesnt include forces from NATO countries who would join including the French. So the 90,000 doesnt have to be all U.S. troops.

 Dempsey didnt pull that number out of a hat or ask a Magic 8 Ball. He had military planners at the Pentagon war game a mobilization and give a force assessment needed and a plan. Dempsey wouldnt have bothered to have military planners come up with a plan if he thought sending troops to destroy Isis wasnt necessary.Or advisable.

How many attacks and loss of life will it take before Obama decides that his condemnations and thoughts and prayers  and his heart going out are not enough? No one can say. But a leader acts to prevent a tragedy. And Obama is not a leader. Hopefully it won't take another mass casualty attack in the U.S. to force his reluctant hand. But it might. 

And let's not forget the refugee crisis with tens of thousands of refugees pouring into Europe while many are seeking asylum in the U.S. which has created another problem of its own.These refugees are coming from Syria.Running from Isis.

Bernard Henri-Levy a French writer and philosopher said after the Paris attacks, "no boots on the ground in Iraq means more blood on the ground in France and the U.S." He's been proved right. And if there is any real controversy over whether troops should be sent, there are two choices: follow the advice of the former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, three Secretaries of Defense and the dictates of common sense, or the judgement of the president who three years ago shrugged Isis off as no problem and called them "the junior varsity".

From the beginning three years ago and with each subsequent attack it is Obama's handling of Isis and terrorism that deserves to be condemned. And now more than ever in the strongest possible terms.





Thursday, July 14, 2016

Clinton and the FBI Decision: A Comey of Errors.





James Comey is an honest man. A man who's integrity is beyond reproach. And nothing about that has changed with his decision not to recommend prosecution of Hillary Clinton for what was clearly her blatant disregard for State Department rules regarding the protection of sensitive to classified national security documents and in his words, her "extreme carelessness" which many argue is the same as negligent which by statute would rise to the level of a felony.

But the error James Comey made in deciding against recommending criminal prosecution for Clinton was not about the evidence which speaks for itself, it was Comey's reasoning, not some adolescent comic book conspiracy theory about a fix that some believe.

The primary reason Comey gave for not recommending prosecution was that he could not find any precedent to prosecute based on Clinton's actions. And, he said, he went all the way back to 1917 and the origin of the statute through to the present  to look. And therein lies his error.

James Comey felt because there was no precedent there ought not to be a prosecution. However in the case of Hillary Clinton based on the facts,specifics and the times in which we live and technology available that was not available to any other Secretary of State or State Department employee between 1917 and 2008, what was needed in Clinton's case was not to look for a precedent but to set one.

And the reason setting a precedent in Clinton's case was called for was  the simple fact that everything Hillary Clinton did was in fact,  unprecedented.

Her actions and behavior were aided and abetted and made possible by a technology that simply didnt exist from 1917 through 2008. And her motive, to avoid her emails being disclosed through the Freedom of Information Act, also didnt exist until 1967 and was then had to be amended in 1996 to cover electronic communications like computer email.

Because of all these things, Clinton's actions deserved a precedent setting prosecution based on unprecedented behavior made possible by unprecedented technology and a motive that didnt exist until 1996.

Clinton is only the third Secretary of State to serve during the high tech era of Information Technology and the information age. The first two were Colin Powell from 2001-2004 and Condoleeza Rice from 2004-2008.

But the technology available during Powell and Rice's tenure was almost horse and buggy compared to what exists now and what was available to Clinton when she was Secretary of State and what she in fact used.

What Clinton did with her private server and multiple hand held devices violated multiple and serious specific State Department rules regulations and guidelines against doing specifically those things and would disqualify anyone from having any security clearances at all from sensitive to Top Secret. Those guidelines didnt exist till 2006, before Powell's tenure and two years into Rice's and so to look for precedent to use to prosecute Clinton made no sense.

Clinton's violations had no relation to anything that could have been envisioned from 1917 through 1996-2006. And no relation to anything Colin Powell or Condoleeza Rice did or could have done, which Clinton dishonestly has tried to use to compare and justify her own blatant violations.

Further, Clinton's claim that she did it for convenience is in its own way even more damning  than the real reason of avoiding the Freedom of Information Act to keep secret work related emails she didnt want people to see or know about. Clinton's claim of convenience portrays her as a self centered,narrow minded,reckless and feckless  character who put her own trivial and selfish need for personal convenience ahead of national security guidelines. So even her dishonest public statement about why she did it is character revealing.

That Clinton offered that as the reason she was willing to violate specific StateDepartment rules and regulations pertaining to protected confidential State Department material makes Clinton look petty,conniving and irresponsible.

State Department guidelines for protecting all material, not just classified as the guidelines state, were not there for Clinton's convenience and that she disregarded those guidelines and used personal convenience as her excuse makes Clinton unqualified to handle such documents.

Hillary Clinton compounded her lies when she repeatedly said that "Colin Powell did the same thing". Colin Powell did not do the same thing. What Colin Powell did compared to Clinton is the difference between riding a bicycle and driving a Formula One racer. And Powell did not violate any State Department guidelines with regards to handling sensitive or classified material.

For the record, the "same thing" that Powell did that Clinton had tried to use as an excuse to justify her conduct was that from 2000-2004 when he was Secretary of State Colin Powell had an AOL email account. AOL.

Hillary Clinton wants you to compare Powell having an AOL email account which was never used to communicate sensitive or classified information, to her own use of a private email server  in the basement of her home used with mutiple hand held devices (which blows her "convenience" story of only wanting one device for everything for anyone brainless enough to have believed it in the first place) in which she sent and received over 55,000 State Department emails, 110 of them classified.

 That is Clinton's idea of Powell's having done the "same thing". It shows an almost pathological willingness to lie about anything for self-serving reasons. And she wonders why a large majority say she is dishonest and untrustworthy.

It  was an error of logic and reasoning on Comey's part to recommend against prosecuting Clinton based on a lack of precedent when, in  the case of Hillary Clinton precedent was exactly what was called for.What Clinton did was unprecedented and she did it with unprecedented equipment and it called for an unprecedented prosecution.

In citing the case of David Patraeus Comey pointed out that he had physical hard copies of classified material  hidden in a drawer in his home. That could easily have found precedent and similar conduct between 1917 - 2008 and so precedent was easy to find.  There was  no precedent to what Clinton did and so precedent should never have been the deciding factor.

Investigators and prosecutors when looking at a crime and a suspect always boil it down to means, motive and opportunity. From 1917  - 2008 the means motive and opportunity that applied to Clinton didn't exist.

 Her motive didn't exist because prior to 1996 there was no Freedom of Information Act covering electronic communications which was her motive for using a private server  to prevent her emails from being made public. And the means and opportunity didn't exist because the technology she used didn't exist between 1917 and 1996-2008.

No one can disagree that what Clinton did was unprecedented. It should have been met with a precedent setting prosecution applying today's realities, facts and technology, facts and realities that existed while Clinton was Secretary of State which gave her the means motive and opportunity to do what she did but did not exist for anyone else between 1917 and 2008.

It will now be up to the Inspector General of the State Department to decide whether or not Clintons security clearances will be revoked for her irrefutable disqualifying violations of 5 applicable State Department guidelines that disqualify someone from a security clearance. Those disqualifying guidelines are specified in paragraphs b,c,g,h,i  of Section K on handling protected information which can be read here. 

There will be no need to review Clinton's security clearances for a precedent because the guidelines which were written in 2006 are so specific and apply to Clinton's violations, conduct and behavior with such specificity you would think they were written by a Republican committee member two weeks ago just to apply to Clinton.

As Comey pointed out, in spite of deciding not to prosecute, just because he found no precedent to charge Clinton with one or more felonies,(error or not) that did not mean there would be no consequences for someone who did what Clinton did and Comey mentioned security clearance sanctions as an example.

 If Clinton's security clearances  are revoked it will have almost the same effect as her being indicted. It would be impossible for her to run for president in spite of many of her supporters who think it would be ok even if she had to wear an ankle bracelet and report to a parole officer while president.

If on the other hand Clinton's security clearances are not revoked when any State Department employee with  the same violations based on established guidelines would have not only been fired but had all their security clearances stripped, if after all of  Clinton's deliberate and intentional disqualifying violations along with her repeated public lying about those violations and her refusal to cooperate with the Inspector General, if  after all of that her security clearances are not revoked as they would with anyone else,it would be the biggest breach of public trust in government since Watergate. And that would not be a  comedy of errors, but a tragedy. For the whole country. And for the future.

Wednesday, July 6, 2016

Comey Shreds Clinton Character and Conduct But Says Not a Felon. But It's Not Over.




Almost everyone is finding it hard to understand why, based on the case and evidence laid out against Hillary Clinton by FBI Director Jim Comey, he made the decision not to indict.
 
Comey presented a case littered with conduct by Hillary Clinton that included "extreme carelessness" in mishandling  classified government information that ran the gamut from "sensitive" to "Top Secret"and how thoroughly dishonest Hillary Clinton was in lying to the public about everything related to her server from "there was no classified information on my server" ,"I did not send or receive any classified information" ( she sent or received 110 documents that were classified)  "I turned over everything" ( there were thousands of her emails she did not turn over) and more which to many seemed to violate laws that Comey believed couldn't be
successfully prosecuted.
 
One of the main bones of contention with Comey's decision was his finding that there was no "intent" on Clinton's part to violate these laws. But the wording of the law itself is not limited to "intent", but says "intent or negligent" . Comey has characterized Clinton's conduct as "extreme carelessness". Many have wondered what the distinction is between "extreme carelessness" in handling classified material and "negligence" especially when Comey said Clinton "knew or should have known" the material was classified, some were actually marked "classified" and that "someone in her position knew or should have known that her unsecured private server was no place to have these conversations".
 
Why that isn't negligence hasn't been answered but Comey's presentation against Clinton was as devastating politically as an indictment would have been criminally.
 
Its a reflection of those supporting Hillary Clinton that many think its a positive to be able to say Hillary Clinton is not a felon. But were it not for Comey making a  distinction between "extreme carelessness" and "negligence" Hillary Clinton would be on her way to getting a mug shot.
 
Regardless Comey's statement about Clinton makes her the most untrustworthy patently dishonest person the Democrats have ever run for president placing Barrack Obama firmly in second.
 
But glossed over by almost everyone in their focus on whether Clinton would be indicted was something almost as serious that still hangs over her. And may still end her candidacy. And Comey alluded to it.
 
Comey said in his decision not to recommend an indictment," this is not to suggest that a person engaged in this activity (all the things Clinton did) would face no consequences. To the contrary. Those individuals (like Clinton) are often subject to security or administrative sanctions. But that is not what we are deciding now".
 
Saying " this is not what we are deciding now" clearly leaves the door open and implies other decisions in the future regarding Clinton, and his statement at the time was purely about whether Clinton would be criminally indicted.
 
Which means there is reason for Clinton and her supporters not to breath too easily yet. Its not over.
 
There is good reason to believe based on  Comey's statement and presentation of evidence against Clinton which rose to the level of "extreme carelessness", combined with what we know were her intentionally false public statements from "my server was approved" to her false claims (the AP counted 7)made regarding her handling of classified documents as well as other transgressions including the possibility of her unsecured server being hacked and using her private server  to discuss sensitive matters while within countries that are "adversarial to the United States",  there is every possibility that Hillary Clinton is going to lose her National Security clearances.
  
The State Dept announced they are opening investigations into all of Clinton's staff to determine if security clearances will be revoked at State. It's unclear if Clinton is included in the review but there is no reason to think she wouldn't be.

If Clinton has her security clearances revoked for her clear and irrefutable violations of 4 and possibly 5 of the guidelines that can disqualify someone from a security clearance her candidacy is over. It's farce to think anyone who is disqualified from a security clearance and can't receive classified or Top Secret information can be president.
 
Being labeled a security risk and losing her security clearances would end Clinton's candidacy as much as an indictment.
 
After viewing State Department guidelines related to national security clearances and what disqualifies someone from a security clearance that allows them to handle classified information defined in Section K under "handling protected information" it's clear Hillary Clinton violated a minimum of 4 and probably 5 of the guidelines (par. b,c g,h,i of Section K) that would disqualify her from seeing or handling classified information of any kind.(The guidelines can be read here)

There are 3 mitigating circumstances in which someone violating national security guidelines might not have their clearances revoked and not one of them apply to Clinton.

In other words, right now Hillary Clinton couldn't get a job at the State Department or get a Top Secret security clearance. In fact she would probably be disqualified from having any security clearance at all. Not a good thing to have on your resume if your running for president. And it is axiomatic that all government agencies honor the security clearances or disqualifications from one agency. 

Right now based on Comey's presentation and State Department guidelines regarding handling of classified information, Hillary Clinton would be considered a security risk and denied security clearances at State.
 
Comey's statement that someone who did what Clinton did would face consequences such as security sanctions and  ending  with " but that's not what we are deciding now" implies that  is going to be decided.

Its almost impossible to believe that given what Comey laid out and existing precedent and State Department guidelines regarding handling of classified information and what constitutes a "security concern", that Hillary Clinton will not face security sanctions as anyone else would who, as Comey said, engaged in similar conduct and violated the same security rules Clinton did.
 
If State is going to make that evaluation one would think it will be soon. Before the Democratic convention. Because it is obvious that no one who is disqualified from having a national security clearance can be president.
 
If Clinton is not disqualified while her aides are  it might cause the biggest breach of public trust since Watergate. And people are going to want to know why.But given the scathing report against Clinton issued by the Inspector General at State it's not likely Clinton will get a pass.

Because as Comey said, there is precedent for people who engaged in conduct similar to or less than Clinton's who faced " security sanctions" . That means being stripped of your national security clearances. As Patraeus was. And there is every reason to believe the same will happen to Clinton. If she is part of the State Department investigation it is a  certainty Clinton  cannot survive a security review. If she is not part of the investigation people are going to want to know why and in all likelihood all hell will break loose in congress since there is no reason to exclude her.
 
For now Clinton and her supporters still have to shoulder Comey's scathing indictment of Clinton, her lying, her "extreme carelessness" in mishandling classified information and a litany of other transgressions from "knew or should have known", to making US classified information vulnerable to "hostile actors", and so much more that even some friendly news outlets have called it "devastating" and have been pounding away at her. That is not going to go away.
 
The last straw may come with the State Dept  revoking her security clearances.That would effectively  end her run for president.

If that happens,in spite of not being indicted for felonies,stripping Clinton of her national security clearances would end her presidential run.She would have to drop out. And if that happened it could be said that in the end the punishment will have fit the crime.

NOTE: The State Department announced today (July 8) they have opened an investigation into Hillary Clinton's security clearances.
 
 
 
 

Saturday, July 2, 2016

Bill Clinton's Lack of Intelligence Mission With Loretta Lynch.





Loretta Lynch has been taking a lot of heat from every quarter for not throwing Bill Clinton off her plane. And maybe it's valid. But its also true that Lynch was ambushed by Bill Clinton when he showed up unannounced while her plane sat on the tarmac at Phoenix betting Lynch wouldnt throw him off. He was right.

When Clinton boarded that plane he knew what he was doing. And no doubt that Lynch suspected it too.There is also little doubt that Bill knew that what he was doing was not just inappropriate but putting Lynch in the position of having to violate the DOJ's code of conduct to talk to him. Clinton knew that too and didnt care. For one reason. Desperate times call for desperate measures.

That all Clinton did was talk about golf and his grandchildren is no doubt true. But it had a purpose.
And Bill Clinton's purpose in boarding Lynch's plane to make small talk was to gather intelligence. 

Bill Clinton is a smart guy. Even his enemies wouldnt take that from him. Bill was on an intelligence mission to see what if anything he could glean from making small talk with Lynch and how she acted and related to him based on whatever she might know about the FBI investigation into Hillary Clinton. Bill was smart enough never to go near questions related to the investigation. That wasnt his purpose. It was to use other means to see what he could find out.

 Was she cordial? Relaxed? Was she stiff and formal? Did she look him in the eye or evade his glance? Bill was looking for anything that would give him a clue, her body language, her voice inflection, her tone, anything. Did she seem at ease meaning everything with the FBI was hunky dory and there was nothing to worry about? Or was she a little tense, seem distracted, did small talk make her uneasy meaning Billary had a lot to worry about?

That was the purpose of Bill's intelligence mission. Except it showed a complete lack of intelligence since not only was it unethical for him to be there it put a spotlight on the investigation that had been going on in the background for some time and added  to public perceptions of Hillary as unethical  and dishonest. 

There was backlash from the meeting in every quarter except for Hillary's robots and has been so negative it put Hillary back on the defensive and made headlines everywhere. Even congressional Democrats admitted it looked bad and the meeting and its fallout has been front page lead news all around the country.

But Bill's gambit to have a one on one to see what he could learn by making small talk showed a lot more than bad judgement. And it's something no one is talking about. It showed that Bill and Hillary are very, very worried. About the investigation and its possible outcome.

Bill being married to Hillary knows how much she is worried. And Hillary knowing more than anyone else about what happened with her private server and why is giving every indication she knows she has something to worry about. 

So much so that Bill was willing to risk how bad the appearances were going to look to take the opportunity to ambush Lynch on her plane to see what he could learn. Inquiring minds wanted to know. Does Hillary have anything to worry about it or not? The risk Bill was willing to take was proportionate to how worried they are and how much they think there is something to worry about.

In all likelihood Bill learned nothing specific from Lynch's demeanor and at the same time made it a lot worse for Hillary. Its put the criminal investigation under even more scrutiny than before and everything the FBI and the DOJ does will be under a microscope. But it also raises questions about Hillary suddenly (yes suddenly) going in for her long awaited FBI interview this weekend.

It certainly wasn't scheduled. If Bill and Hillary knew  Hillary was  going to request an FBI interview this weekend there is  no way even Bill Clinton would have risked trying to see Lynch days before. The fact that Hillary Clinton's request came so soon after Bill's meeting is enough to suggest it had everything to do with what Bill surmised from the meeting.

The FBI has made witness schedules public in the past for Clinton's staff. They were no secret. They are scheduled well in advance. This is to give witnesses time to prepare, refresh their recollection as lawyers like to say and allows them to arrange a day and time so their lawyers can be present. The interview this weekend wasn't previously scheduled and could only have been a last minute result of  Bill's impromptu ambush of Lynch. 

Hillary had been the last person on the witness list for a long time. Too long. If the FBI had nothing they would have called Hillary Clinton as the last witness a long time ago. They were content to continue the investigation without questioning her. That it was getting this close to the convention without her being called for an interview would be something to worry about it if your Bill or Hillary or a supporter. There has to be a reason Hillary forced the issue this weekend.

Bryan Pagliano, the IT pro who set up her email server first pled the 5th on the advice of his criminal defense lawyer who clearly believes Pagliano committed one or more federal offenses. The FBI gave him immunity and he talked. Since everything he did was at Clinton's direction it would be hard to think that if Pagliano committed an offense Clinton didn't. But we will soon know.

People are free to speculate what conclusions Bill mightve drawn that forced Hillary into the impromptu FBI meeting. Did Bill feel everything was good so now was the time to go? Or did he get a sense things weren't going well and thought Hillary better get in there and do damage control? 

Anyone's guess would be valid. Mine is the latter. If you think things are going well you leave well enough alone and go on with your business. But if you think there might be trouble, now would be the time to get in there and try and right the ship. I think Bill smelled trouble and told Hillary to get in there ASAP,especially since it's a holiday weekend when people are paying less attention to the news.

With the Democratic convention only a month away it is a certainty the FBI will not let the issue go until after the convention opens July 25. With Clinton the front runner for the nomination (she still does not have enough delegates for the nomination and needs 67 more of the remaining 137 non committed) its inconceivable the FBI or DOJ would wait till after the nomination process if they are going to indict Clinton or recommend charges.

Whatever is going to happen will be within the next 3 weeks.

But what Bill did in throwing appearances to the wind in order to find out anything he could gives the appearance of being desperate. And since Bill knows what Hillary knows maybe they think they have good reason to be.

One other thing to keep in mind: indictments are only issued for felonies not misdemeanors. For anyone who thinks misdemeanors are trivial, like a parking ticket,former general and CIA  Director David Patraeus pled guilty to a misdemeanor charge in his case of mishandling classified material. It resulted in his losing his job,losing his security clearance for life and 5 years probation. There could be no indictments and Clinton could still be charged with misdemeanors serious enough to end her candidacy.

If the FBI does have the evidence to warrant an indictment or multiple indictments  or charges of any kind, we are going to know by July 25. One way or the other  the case and its conclusions will be made public before July 25th.

Obviously Bill and Hillary couldn't wait.

Tuesday, June 21, 2016

Why the FBI Recommending a Clinton Indictment is Becoming Likely.





There are some Clinton supporters exhibiting Tea Party-like lunacy who probably think nothing Hillary Clinton can do would justify an FBI indictment for breaking one or more laws and that there is always some explanation for everything. 

That she was caught lying repeatedly about her server and willingly and intentionally broke State Department rules is, according to them, and many of her voters "nothing." But what the FBI is currently weighing isn't breaking government rules or lying to the public but whether or not what Clinton did and her subsequent use of her email server for her entire tenure as Secretary of State resulted in criminal acts  and multiple criminal acts meaning that she violated statutes not just rules including multiple counts of mishandling classified documents, having them removed to an unauthorized location, a component of the Espionage Act, and additional felonies arising out of her unauthorized use of a private server and attempts at concealing it. And a decision on that is coming from the FBI very soon.

The Inspector General Report on Hillary Clinton and her use of a private email server, a report even friendly media outlets like MSNBC called "devastating" and revealed Clinton as " a liar" was an investigation Clinton refused to cooperate with. That ought to tell you something -- the former Secretary of State refused  to cooperate or be interviewed by the Inspector General of her own State Department into an investigation of her email server that she said had been approved and that everyone knew about. 

It's no wonder the report was called damning by everyone who's read it in that it exposed Clinton for having lied multiple times in public statements about her use of a private email server having been approved. Both the lies and the refusal to cooperate with the Inspector General has showed clear and intentional deception by Clinton. Her refusal to cooperate also was evidence that she was worried and proves intent to deceive. 

But deception,while a crime that could lead to multiple counts of obstruction and conspiracy to obstruct, while serious, is the least of everything piling up against Clinton. 

The OIG report set the record straight -- Clinton's server was never approved, Clinton never asked for approval and had Clinton asked for approval it would have been denied.

That Clinton never even asked to have her private server approved indicates a state of mind for Clinton that could be used in legal proceedings against her. State of mind is important in evaluating intent in criminal proceedings, since Clinton knew it would not be approved and decided to go ahead anyway because she wanted it  for her own purposes which had nothing to do with convenience, the excuse she first gave. 

And her state of mind clearly blows Obama's recent statement out of the water that whatever she did, he was sure was unintentional, a subtle indication that maybe he doesn't think the investigation is going Clinton's way. But a statement that is absurd on two levels. First lack of intent or unintended consequences is never a defense to breaking the law. You did or you didnt.Second, there is already proof that what Clinton did with her email server and keeping it a secret from authorities was intentional and that she knew she was violating rules and procedures. For the FBI they have to determine if all she did rises to the level of  criminal. And all that matters on that count is did Clinton break any laws.

From a legal point of view lying publicly is not a crime. However lying does reveal  Clinton's state of mind and intention to thwart, obstruct and deceive a government agency in the lawful administration of its functions,and so her lying is relevant. And Carl Bernstein's reporting has  filled us in on her real motive, not convenience  but that Hillary Clinton didn't want any of her emails subject to the Freedom of Information Act and wanted to circumvent it. Maybe for the same reasons she has so zealously guarded her Wall Street speech transcripts. She just didnt want anyone, watchdogs, the congress or the public to know everything she was doing.

 That alone is a crime, both breaking the  Federal Records Act (that's a law not a rule) and trying to keep State Department officials from knowing it means  she was violating both department rules and committing a crime. And keeping it a secret could rise to the level of obstruction of justice. 

Her public statements that she both had approval and it was known in the State Department were both lies. Her staff knew. That was it.  Her public lying could also be used to show Clinton engaged in a cover up to keep her use of a private email server secret.

That she conspired with others to do that is also a crime and there is evidence she did -- with both her Deputy Chief of Staff Jake Sullivan and Bryan Pagliano the IT professional who set up her email server and who, on advice of counsel, pled the 5th amendment both in front of a House committee and the FBI. The FBI granted him immunity. And he's talked.

Though admittedly speculation it is logical and informed speculation to consider that if Pagliano and his lawyer believe that he committed at least one crime and possibly more following Clinton's instructions in setting up her email server and possibly conspiring to cover it up,  its not illogical to think there is a good possibility that Clinton did too. And that could be just the beginning.

According to the OIG report two lower Clinton staffers at the State Department testified to the Inspector General that they expressed concerns about her use of the private home email server to a superior on Clinton's staff, another indication that it was common knowledge that Clinton's private server was at least a violation of rules and possibly against the law.  

The report states that  when the staffers expressed that concern they were told to "never discuss or bring up the Secretary's private email server again".

While a lawyer could claim that was not an attempt to obstruct, muzzle or conceal Clinton's private server from authorities by instructing staff never to talk about it but that he simply meant there were more important things to deal with, the FBI and their lawyers are probably at this moment deciding if that is enough to get a conviction against that staffer and Clinton on obstruction, conspiracy to obstruct and obstructing a government agency from the lawful administration of its duties. As well as conspiracy to violate the Federal Records Act. 

One thing for certain. If the FBI does recommend an indictment its going to be big and involve a whole bunch of things, not some nickel and dime spitting on the sidewalk violation.

Clinton's repeated public statements that the server had been approved when she, Sullivan her Deputy Chief of Staff and others knew it hadn't gives further weight to Clinton's state of mind knowing that she was violating at least State Department regulations and possibly the law, knowing it was unauthorized but being arrogant enough to think she could circumvent laws and regulations and decided she was going to use it anyway.

Those issues alone  if corroborated could be enough to indict her. But there is a lot more.
Having not gotten approval for the private server there is no doubt that  legally every email sent to her server violated the statute that makes unauthorized removal of a government document to an unauthorized location a crime. The higher the classification of document the bigger the crime. It can be argued that every communication from a .gov address to Clinton dealing with government business violated that statue.

And by not getting approval and the OIG report stating clearly Clinton would not have gotten it, it not only buttresses the legal argument that any and all State Department emails sent to her  server broke the law but legally as soon Clinton opted to use  her private unauthorized server as a government server to conduct government business, it technically and legally became the property of the government not Clinton's.

What that also means is that the 33,000 emails that Clinton destroyed from her server may also be a crime. Especially since those very emails had been under subpoena. 

That server had become government property and Clinton had no authority to destroy or delete anything.It would have been left to a third party to go through all her emails, probably the Inspector General, and decide what was government business and what wasn't what she could keep and do with as she pleased and what she couldn't.  Which would have meant that her private emails would be seen by someone she didn't want to see them. So she destroyed them. 

How much of a crime was it and how much did it reveal about Clinton and her state of mind? She destroyed those 33,000 emails while they were under subpoena. Which could also land her in hot water for destruction of evidence. And she did it thinking she could sell the idea that everyone would accept her word for what was personal and what was government related.

By taking it upon herself to destroy those 33,000 emails she may have broken a number of laws including the unauthorized destruction of government records.And with it more of the laws of unintended consequences.

As for the email server itself as a violation of unauthorized removal of government documents to an unauthorized location remember that former general and CENTCOM commander then CIA Director David Patraeus was charged with the same violation after an FBI investigation proved he had taken documents home from CIA headquarters and had them on his home computer where they were seen by a woman he was having an affair with.

Patraeus pled guilty to unauthorized removal of classified government documents to an unauthorized location, lost his job and is on probation.

Clinton is guilty of the unauthorized removal of approximately 55,000 government documents to an unauthorized location and the FBI has been investigating how many of those might have been classified.  To date the number is 22. However even unclassified documents may be covered by statute which Clinton violated just not as serious as classified.They certainly violated State Department rules. 

It is part of the governments case against Snowden for espionage that he is guilty of unauthorized removal of classified government documents. The big difference is that Clinton didn't turn documents over to anyone and Snowden did. But there are those who say that if those documents were highly classified, aspects of the Espionage Act would apply.

There is already evidence of how fast and loose with the truth Clinton has been regarding her server to the extent of outright lying. But there might be something even more serious surrounding her penchant for lies and half truths.

Half truths could be at the heart of the 22  emails marked "classified" that were on her server.

Clinton's defense has been they were not classified at the time she got them and were only marked "classified" later. (which would be no defense regarding the other charges stemming from having the private server and unauthorized removal of government documents in the first place).

But there is some evidence though not complete or corroborated that Clinton tried to circumvent the problem of getting classified material on her server on some ocassions.

Knowing that some of the information Clinton needed to see was classified and showing a knowledge that her email server was not authorized to receive classified documents, there is some informed speculation based on knowledge, that Clinton may have had  a staff member remove the "classified" designation from documents she needed to see, had it sent via email as a document with no "classified" heading,  then after it was received, had the "classified" heading replaced on the document.
That would allow Clinton to claim the document wasn't classified when she received it and was marked classified only later,  after she received it which is what she claims.

But if Clinton did have the "classified" designation temporarily removed, that would be extremely serious and constitute multiple felonies. It would not only be a illegal for her to have received a classified document on her server,but it would also involve Clinton and a staffer altering and defacing a classified document as well as removing it. It would put Clinton in the most serious legal jeopardy imaginable.

The FBI investigation is a criminal investigation into when why,and  how the 22 classified  documents had been on Clinton's server.Like all criminal investigations where leads and evidence are followed it can branch out into different directions. The fact that  those documents were there at all is a crime. Since it's not up to Clinton to decide what is classified and what isn't having the server at all and having those documents in a place they were not authorized to be is an example of the laws of unintended consequences affecting Clinton. Saying the documents were not classified at the time would be no defense. It's not up to Clinton what gets classified or when.

Any hacker who obtained the documents later marked "classified" would have classified documents because Clinton was using an illegal unsecured server. Clinton's knowledge of whether the documents were classified at the time she got them would be irrelevant. She had no legal right or basis for having them on her server to begin with.

One thing is clear: all the other witnesses  on the FBI witness list have been interviewed except one. Clinton.  If the FBI had nothing on Clinton and no reason to continue to investigate they would have called her for an interview more than a month ago and been done with it.They haven't.

That Clinton broke a number of State Department regulations is irrefutable and Clinton voters and supporters including former Secretary of State Madeline Albright, obviously don't care. And don't seem to care if she committed crimes or not, was lying or not was deceptive or not, broke laws or not. 

The FBI does, and so may voters. And delegates at the convention.

If the FBI does in fact have enough evidence to  show what Clinton did rises to the level of criminal violations they must decide that soon. It means a decision as to whether to change Clinton's status from a witness to a "target" of the investigation.

By law, if they change her status to "target" they must notify her and her attorney before she is called. That gives her the legal right to refuse to be interviewed. 

 If the FBI had nothing to implicate Clinton it's likely Clinton would have been interviewed by now and the matter closed.  So there is enough for them to keep going. And keep Clinton waiting. Which is not to say that alone means an indictment is coming. But its clear the FBI has enough to review and weigh.

If the FBI does have evidence against Clinton, serious enough to warrant recommending an indictment by naming her as a "target", there is no doubt the FBI and Jim Comey understand the consequences . That means in all probability they will not wait for the Democratic convention to start on July 25th before making a decision. Its inconceivable the FBI would have enough evidence to charge her and allow her name to be put in nomination at the convention and then name her as a target later which would throw the entire political process into chaos.

That's why its a little better than 50-50 she will be indicted. Based on what the FBI must have from Pagliano and the indications and inferences that can be drawn from the OIG report, if  it were anyone else they probably would have been indicted by now. But the consequences of a presidential campaign and nominating convention coming up given that Clinton is the front runner for the Democratic nomination (yes front runner despite the fraud she, the DNC and the news media tried to commit claiming she had clinched anything)  the consequences of an indictment goes beyond Clinton.  There are no do overs. So the FBI knows they need to dot all their "i"'s and cross their "t"'s. And be sure.

Its useful supposition to consider there was a sense of urgency among Clinton, her supporters, the DNC and super delegates to see what they could do to head off an FBI announcement making her a target.  Or make it more difficult. Super delegates were clearly given marching orders to call the AP  and say they would vote for Clinton which were used by a colluding AP and a Simon Says New York Times in promoting the fiction that she "clinched" to try and intimidate the FBI by claiming she was already the nominee and it's too late  to indict her.

It's not too late. And James Comey is as straight an arrow as they come. He won't be intimidated. And Attorney General Lynch is on the record as saying if the FBI recommends an indictment the DOJ will indict.

There are legal experts among them former  U.S. Attorneys making the rounds of some TV news shows who make it better than 50-50 she will be indicted. Some say its 60-40. And that's based on information that is public and their knowledge of federal statutes without knowing what the FBI has or their witness statements.So its not about Clinton lying. Lying repeatedly in public is not a crime. If it were Clinton would be wearing an ankle bracelet by now.

Joe DiGenova, a Republican but also a former U.S. Attorney has gone a step further and said in an interview that Clinton's indictment is virtually certain, citing many of the same points mentioned here. But he added one more thing that for Clinton would be chilling if true. As a former U.S. attorney Di Genova has contacts inside the FBI. And DiGenova said the evidence of Clinton's having committed crimes is so great, and that people have been prosecuted for less, he claimed that if  the FBI recommends indictments to the DOJ, and there are no indictments of Clinton there will be a "revolt of Watergate style proportions" by FBI agents who had been assigned to the case. Meaning they would walk out in protest.

If what DiGenova says is true, then its not better than 50-50 Clinton will be indicted, its a certainty. Which might be one more reason Bernie Sanders has not made a single gesture towards endorsing Clinton, supporting Clinton, ending his campaign or giving any indication he is no longer a candidate for the presidential nomination. If anything all his words say the opposite.

 DiGenova thinks indictments would come before November. But it wont take an indictment to force Clinton to drop out. The FBI recommending an indictment would be enough.

But one thing is certain. If the FBI is going to do something it doesnt make sense they would wait till November and throw the political landscape into utter chaos. It makes no sense that if they decide to recommend an indictment they wouldnt do it before July 25th the date the Democratic National Convention opens. If nothing happens by then, Clinton might be home free. But the fact still remains she has not been called as a witness in the investigation as the last witness to be called. And the longer that goes the worse it looks for Clinton.

Tuesday, June 14, 2016

Why Hillary Clinton Clinched Nothing. And Can't. Really.




There is an old Woody Allen line, "When you tell the truth all the time you never have to remember anything".

What a dishonest Democratic party, super delegates, a dishonest Debby Wasserman-Schultz and DNC and an even more dishonest collection of banana republic news media headed by the AP, New York Times, CNN and MSNBC all colluding with Hillary Clinton in attempting to rig and steal the nomination,didn't remember was something obvious but crucial in their single minded intent of using unofficial super delegate declarations for Clinton to get her to the coveted 2383 delegate total.

And like most people who try to lie, cheat, or steal their way to something that isnt rightfully theirs and haven't earned, there is always something they forget that trips them up. Its how criminals get caught. And the attempted putsch by Clinton,the DNC,her supporters and a corrupt colluding news media is no different.

And what has tripped them all up and what usually trips up people so arrogant as to think rules or laws dont apply to them is just that. The rules .Because its the Democratic Party's own rules that can be found here,  that proves Clinton clinched nothing. And not only didn't clinch the nomination, but it is actually impossible for her to do so.No matter how many super delegates actually vote for her. If they vote.

Like the movie War of the Worlds where the Martian invaders were felled by the smallest most simple of things, so to is it with Hillary Clinton,the DNC and their colluding partners in the news media and big money interests behind Clinton (for one simple reason: Sanders cant be bought because of his integrity and Trump can't be bought because of his money).

 And this simple thing that they overlooked that upends all their well planned rigging since January when super delegates,arranged by Clinton and Debby Wasserman-Schultz began coming out the woodwork to make unofficial "announcements" to  make it look like Clinton's lead was bigger than it really was, is right there in the Democratic party rules, the official rules,not some banana republic AP "survey"  to use as a substitute for democracy to shove Hillary Clinton down the throats of Sanders and his voters and  America for that matter, but the official Democratic Party rules of what it takes to nominate a candidate.

Those rules show clearly that the number of pledged delegates in the Democratic party is 4051. The number of super delegates is 712.

What  they forgot because they were so fixated on getting Clinton to 2383, is that 2383 is approximately 60% (58.9% down to decimals) of the 4051 pledged delegate total. Which is what the rules require. But with the primaries over we know that neither Clinton nor Sanders got there. The Clinton camp in collusion with the media have tried to put out the fiction that Clinton will get there using super delegates. But what they forgot is that once super delegates vote its not the 2383 that matters anymore. Because it's not 4051 voting anymore. Add 712 super delegates and it's 4763 voting . And it's still getting 58.9% of the total delegate pool that matters. And Clinton can't get there either even with super delegates.

In almost every case except twice in the last 50 years a nominee has been able to win the approximate 60% of pledged delegates (the approximation is because of what the Democratic Party calls " at large" delegates - neither pledged nor super ) in the primaries. Which is why super delegates have actually only voted once to nominate a candidate and that was 32 years ago in 1984 when the total number of pledged delegates were 1000 fewer than today.

But what those trying to rig the nomination for Clinton with super delegates forgot is that as soon as super delegates actually vote at the convention, if they vote,those 712 super delegates increase that voting pool by 712 to 4763. The point is simple: increase the voting delegate pool and you increase the number of delegates a candidate needs to win the nomination. Because its the percentage of delegates won that counts not the 2383.

Based on Democratic party rules that define a nominee as having to win 2383 of 4051 voting delegates or 58.9%, as soon as super delegates vote and add 712 to the delegate pool a candidate now needs to win 58.9% of 4763 not 4051. And 58.9% of 4763 is 2805. And Clinton can't get there even if all 519 super delegates who came out with "declarations" actually voted for her.

The best Clinton could do if 519 super delegates voted for her which would never happen, is 2738.She'd still be 67 delegates short of what the rules show is the 58.9% needed for the nomination. And no more delegates to be had. Not in Clinton's pocket or under Debby Wasserman-Schultz' dining room table. And again, that's if all 519 super delegates claimed in the AP announcement voted for her.(It should be noted that the final pledged delegate count is up in the air.Clintons reported pledged delegate count after California was estimated at 2026. California is not through counting.Some are reporting a pledged delegate count of 2219 after the DC primary.Clinton did not win 197 delegates from the DC primary so actual delegate counts are imprecise but using the 2219 total gives her the benefit of the doubt.)

Anyone who thinks the nomination can be rigged by claiming that super delegates count when they cast votes at the convention but don't count as part of the overall voting pool ought to think twice.

As they like to say, do the math. Its not who has the most or a simple majority as everyone knows. If that were the case there would never be a need for super delegates as part of the nominating process. Its who gets 58.9% of the delegates. So to reiterate: once super delegates vote and increase the pool to 4763 it is, depending on Clinton's final pledged delegate totals, to quote Robby Mook,Clinton's campaign manager, almost "mathematically impossible" for Hillary Clinton to get enough delegates to win the nomination on either the first or second ballots. And the same is true for Sanders. If Clinton's final pledged delegate totals are 2092 or less all 712 super delegates could vote for her, something that would never happen and Clinton still wouldn't have enough for the nomination.

So if super delegates, who haven't voted to nominate a candidate in 32 years, actually do vote they bring the total voting delegate pool to 4763 and what's needed to nominate is 2805 not 2383.

And no one, especially Debbie Wasserman-Schultz can say " it doesnt work that way" or "that's not how it's done". Neither she nor anyone can say the rules arent the rules and numbers arent the numbers.And neither she nor anyone say "how it's done" since this specific situation has never occurred. Thats why there are rules. And no, it didnt happen in 2008  because super delegates never voted in 2008. A deal was cut between Clinton and Obama before the roll call vote (can anyone say "Secretary of State"?) though Clinton never released her delegates.Obama was nominated in the end by acclimation as part of his deal with Clinton meaning all votes were recorded for him.

The only time in the history of the Democratic party super delegates ever voted to nominate a president was 1984 where Walter Mondale had a 500 delegate lead over Gary Hart with Jesse Jackson in 3rd with another 350 in a total delegate pool that was 1000 less than it is now. Hillary Clinton's pledged delegate lead over Sanders is half of what Mondale's was with 1000+ more delegates in the pool now. It took substantially fewer super delegates in 1984 to get Mondale to what he needed.And he got all of them.

The irrefutable point is,Clinton clinched nothing. The 2383 she and the media are claiming as her having clinched is invalid if the super delegates that brought her to 2383 actually vote. 

What those trying to rig the nomination for Clinton since January didnt count on was Sanders winning as much as he did, winning 22 states outright, tying in four others and in many states beating Clinton by margins so great she looked like a third party candidate winning at times by margins of as many as 60 points.The result was Sanders picking up more than 45% of the pledged delegates. Meaning the most Clinton could ever win in primaries was slightly less than 55% and so could never get to the 2383 or 58.9% of delegates needed. So she needed help.And they thought they could give it to her with anonymous last minute super delegate declarations arranged by Clinton and Debby Wassermsn-Schultz to aid the fraud. They were wrong.

Clinton does not have and likely cannot get with or without super delegates the number she needs to clinch the nomination either on a first ballot or second. Neither can Sanders.

A candidate still needs approximately 60% (or 58.9% down to the last decimal) of whatever the total voting pool is. And with 712 super delegates voting that number is 2805. 

If Democrats and the DNC at the convention try at some point to make some tortured claim that super delegate votes would count towards the original 2383, but somehow don't count as increasing the delegate pool as a way to rig it for Clinton, or if they try and change the rules or re-interpret the rules so that 2383 remains constant no matter the size of the pool to rig the nomination for Clinton they are guaranteed to bring the Democratic party to its knees both in Philadelphia in July and in November.

So to be clear: the AP announcement, the New York Times headline,Clinton the DNC and their allies in the news media who have been part of the collusion trying to claim that she has "won" the nomination were perpetrating a fraud, an attempt at a putsch by Clinton,the DNC and corporate media based on a 2383 number that is no longer what a nominee needs if super delegates vote. Clinton hasnt won a thing. 

What happened on June 6 where the AP falsely proclaimed Clinton had won the nomination based on a "survey" of a handful of anonymous super delegates who said they'd vote for Clinton to get her to the mythical 2383, and then validated by the NY Times and CNN and MSNBC without, in their minds,the need to take a single vote, was not just fraud, it was the most shameful episode in the history of  modern American politics.It was an attempt at the very definition of a  putsch and cheating democracy, Sanders and his 12 million + voters and either trying to get around Democratic party rules or forgetting the simple fact that when you increase the delegate voting pool you increase the number of delegates needed to win. 

It was a bizarre game of "Simon Says" played by the New York Times and other media outlets as a substitute for voting except it was "the AP Says".

And to close any loopholes Debby Wasserman-Schultz or a rules committee might try to use if super delegates vote at the convention,(and remember, they havent voted in 32 years so its no guarantee) they do not vote selectively they vote en masse. It's all or nothing.Once they are asked to vote (they do not automatically vote on the first ballot) all super delegates vote or none do. Anything else and its the Democrats and Hillary Clinton playing "heads I win tails you lose" with Sanders,his voters, Democratic Party rules and  anyone's idea of democracy.

What Clinton, the DNC and the colluding media, the AP, CNN, MSNBC and NY Times tried to pull on June 6th wasn't democracy but a putsch. It was the DNC and Clinton trying to impose their idea of the Divine Right of Kings on the 2016 Democratic nominating process. King George found out how Americans felt about that in Philadelphia in 1776. Hillary Clinton and the DNC will find out,ironically, also in Philadelphia in 2016, if they persist.

So if neither candidate is able to get to the delegates needed on the first or second ballots what happens at the convention?

The  answer is simple. Its how the Democratic party used to nominate a candidate for president for 200+ years before the creation of the much despised super delegates. Barring what many think may be an intervention by the FBI before the convention, Clinton and Sanders will both go to the convention unable to get the requisite number of delegates,pledged and super,needed for the nomination after two ballots (barring mass defections from either side after the first ballot which could happen if in fact there is bad news for Clinton courtesy of the FBI).

It means the nominee would be chosen the old fashioned way, the way Democratic candidates were chosen before super delegates existed in a contested convention: behind the scenes old fashioned  horse trading. That mean each candidate and their surrogates making their pitch to the other's delegates to get them to switch after the first ballot(assuming the DNC recognizes that super delegates voting for Clinton at that point won;t matter and skip the process) ,making arguments, looking to make deals, cajoling, offering compromises, promises, concessions, arm twisting and all the rest to woo delegates. Some delegates will listen some won't, some will listen to their respective leaders, some will take into account any new facts or realities that could make delegates flip from one candidate to the other(Sanders leaves no doubt he would beat Trump where Clinton is very much in doubt) and make up their own minds.A scary prospect for a candidate who tried to get there by rigging the process.

It will be up to each candidate,Sanders and Clinton to do whatever it takes to get enough delegates to switch so someone can get to the number needed. It took 5 ballots at the 1932 convention doing it just that way for Democrats to nominate FDR.And that didn't turn out too badly.

What the outcome of that kind of horse trading at the convention in Philadelphia would be no one knows. Would it be Clinton or Sanders? After the first ballot pledged delegates are free to switch. Super delegates who wouldn't vote on the first ballot are also free to take those phony "declarations" which never officially counted in the first place and dump them. It would then be up to the delegates to decide who they thought the best candidate would be, a true democratic process, something it seems that Clinton and her allies were hoping to avoid.

It would also make great drama as well as finally being democratic because the outcome would be in doubt. But whatever the outcome, it wouldn't be the result of phony super delegates "declarations" that didnt count,voter fraud in at least 6 states, a president intervening on behalf of Clinton in the South while pretending he was staying neutral or a middle of the night putsch Clinton and the news media tried to pull on June 6, ironically the anniversary of D-Day showing  how oblivious they were in hoping to rig a nomination on that day. What mattered was that it needed to be done the day before the California primary to suppress the Sanders vote.

If there is going to be an FBI intervention with Clinton it's going to happen soon, before the convention. If the FBI thinks they have enough to recommend an indictment its hard to believe they would let it go into the convention. If something is going to happen with that it will happen before July 25.

The OIG report didn't help her. Clinton is scheduled to be the last witness called in the FBI investigation but the law requires the FBI must notify her before she appears if her status changes from witness to target. That's because if she becomes a target (based on the FBI deciding they having enough evidence to show that she broke one or more laws) she has the right refuse to appear. It's not an indictment,only the DOJ can do that, but obviously if the FBI notifies her that she has become a target of the investigation its over for Clinton.

If there is no intervention by the FBI then a nominee will emerge from all the horse trading,haggling, arm twisting and deal making at the convention. 

And in the end at least it has the possibility of creating some kind of unity in the Democratic party that is currently impossible since Sanders and his 12 million voters would at least have confidence that the outcome was honest and democratic as opposed to the dirty politics and rigging and fraud that's been going on for Clinton since January.It would be the way Democrats have traditionally nominated a candidate before the advent of not so super super delegates.As was the case with FDR on the 5th ballot in 1932.And with JFK in 1960 who sewed up the nomination and delegates needed by getting Lyndon Johnson on the ticket as his vice president at the convention. Similar strategies may be employed by both Clinton and Sanders to woo delegates. Some may succeed some may not.

Hopefully the DNC will not be so stupid as to try to change the rules or re-interpret the rules in some absurd or tortured way to hand Clinton the nomination on a second ballot anyway by claiming super delegate votes count when they vote but don't count as part of  the voting pool .If they try that magic act the DNC will  be responsible for making Philadelphia look like Chicago 1968.Which it was on its way to becoming anyway.

And that doesn't mean violence. The violence in Chicago in 1968 wasn't caused by the protestors who protested loudly and passionately against the Viet Nam war but were peaceful. A DOJ investigation afterwards concluded the violence was caused solely by the Chicago police in what the DOJ investigation called an out o control "police riot".

The analogy to Chicago 1968 was not about violence but a massive and loud protest and demonstration against Democratic party corruption that will continue past the convention if it isn't stopped in its tracks in Philadelphia.  It would also guarantee no Sanders voter would ever vote for Clinton. And no amount of Democratic kicking and screaming would change that so they could forget unity.

And lest it be overlooked Obama's hands haven't been clean in any of this despite his pretense of acting above the fray. He has been aware of or been a behind the scenes active participant in everything that has gone on since January. As president and the party's leader he controls the DNC and Debby Wasserman-Schultz his hand picked Chair,and she's been carrying out her marching orders from the beginning.Even David Gergen,one of the few honest faces on CNN said as early as February that "it's obvious the DNC is in the tank for Clinton".

Either way, no matter what the final outcome, and no matter who finally gets the nomination, Bernie Sanders and his supporters need to make sure the DNC, Clinton and her Gang That Couldn't Count Straight play by the Democratic Party's own rules. And the rules show that if super delegates vote 2383 isn't enough. And if Clinton or the DNC don't play by the rules, get a federal court to force them to.A court will.

All good reasons Sanders is not going to quit, not going to drop out. Nor should he despite the temper tantrums of some in the news media or those who misrepresent or misunderstand his own words, misreading his statements about stopping Trump as somehow being the same as endorsing Clinton. They aren't .Because there's a  very good chance that before the convention is over when all is said and done,if Democrats are forced to play by their own rules and democracy prevails, Sanders could be the next president. Whether Clinton, dishonest Democrats and super delegates,and a conniving news media and big money interests like it or not.The rules say it can happen. And so may the voters.