How Obama Lied About Obamacare More Than Nixon Lied About Watergate.

Let's be clear about one thing from the beginning: the whole point of healthcare reform, the reason for  it in the first place, what healthcare reform promised by Obama and Democrats in 2008 was supposed to do was two things: get healthcare coverage for the 40 million people who didnt have health insurance because they  couldnt afford it and to drive down  the obscene cost of healthcare for people who did.  The promised public option would have accomplished both. Obamacare did neither.

Obama caved in to the health insurance companies who knew the public option would cost them money and even though the public option had the votes in the Democratically controlled congress to pass, Obama, buckling to the pressure from the health insurance lobby had Harry Reid remove it from the healthcare bill even after the public option was passed by the House. 

Instead, what was finally voted on, what has been called Obamacare, was Obama and the Democrats' bait and switch which incredibly, allowed the insurance companies to write the most important part of the bill, what people would pay for healthcare coverage and what they would get for their money. In both cases, letting the insurance companies make that decision instead of offering the government run public option destroyed healthcare reform. And, deservedly destroyed the Democratic party's majority in congress since 2010 as their voters, betrayed by Obama and the Democrats on the single most important piece of legislation of his term, threw them out of congress.

Obamacare has been a momunmental failure on the two things healthcare reform was supposed to do, get healthcare coverage for the 40 million who didnt have it and to bring down the cost of health care for people who did.  Obama and the Democrats with help from an either ignorant or sycophantic news media, have been brazenly lying about the number of uninsured who now have healthcare coverage who didnt have it before and have been trying to pass off the continued rise in healthcare costs as "success" because the rise has been slower.

First,the assertion that there are 20 million people who didnt have health care coverage who have it now because of Obamacare is as much a lie as anything that came out of the mouth of Richard Nixon. As you will easily see.

With Aetna announcing they are substantially reducing their presence on the Obamacare exchanges following the announcement by United Healthcare that they are leaving the exchanges altogether which follows the Inspector General report last year that 22 of the 23 state Obamacare exchanges are folding and closing down because they are hemorrhaging money because of low enrollments, none of these things would be happening if 20 million people had signed up for Obamacare. Or anywhere close to 20 million. A fact that even further detroys the credibility of most of the mainstream media who think their job is to repeat or not even check, the lies coming from Obama, the White House and Democrats on the "success" of Obamacare.

So it's time to look at again how we got here and how is it that Obama and Democrats and a sycophantic news media tried to claim success when it has been failing. Because all of them and Obama in particular have been lying about Obamacare from the day Obama caved in to pressure from the insurance companies and agreed to drop the public option from the healthcare reform bill but kept it quiet and to this day has never admitted while he and the Democrats have lied and covered it up. 

And since that day, Obama has lied more about Obamacare than Nixon lied about Watergate. If Watergate was about abuse of power, Obama's sell out of the public option to the insurance companies and the bait and switch called Obamacare is certainly about misuse of power, the public trust,public policy and it's fallout.

The media along with Democrats have been repeating lies from the White House from the beginning. The latest was an article in the New York Times  repeating the same White House bogus claim that there are 20 million people who signed up for Obamacare since its inception and now have health insurance they didnt have before.

There are no 20 million previously uninsured who signed up for health insurance because of Obamacare. Not even in Obama's dreams. Its only because Obama knows he can say anything and get away with it because most in the media are too incompetent, too lazy, too inept, too easily intimidated (as Ben Rhodes pointed out about the Iran deal) or too dishonest to question it, that Obama and Democrats like Nancy Pelosi, get away with it.

Unfortunately for Democrats it was voters who who didnt let them get away with it in 2010 and 2014 and they wont be able to keep getting away with it. Democrats could be headed for an October surprise and a defeat in November to go with the wipe out they experienced in 2010 and 2014 for the same reason, the massive failure of Obamacare. Both big defeats were predicted here in both 2010 and 2014 if Democrats didnt recognize Obamacare's failures and heed the warning and do something. They didnt and voters paid them back.

It doesn't take much more than grade school math to know the 2o million figure that the New York Times,Obama, Democrats and others parrot is false. But all you need is a double digit IQ and a minimum of common sense.

In 2008 the last year of the Bush administration the percentage of uninsured in America was 12.6%. Now, 8 years later, after 4 full years of Obamacare the number of uninsured is 9%. A measly drop of 3.6% in the number of uninsured. Do the math and you will see the numbers dont add up.

Based on a population of (approx) 335 million people, 12.6% represents about 40 million uninsured in 2008 a figure just about everyone agrees on. If the number has now dropped to 9% that would mean 30+ million are still without healthcare coverage and reduces the total number by 7-10 million, not 20 million. But keep in mind that in 2008 unemployment was over 9% which added to the rolls of the uninsured. Now unemployment is 4.9% which means about half of that 7-10 million reduction are simply people who went back to work and obtained coverage that way, not through Obamacare. Which leaves about 5 million who actually bought coverage through Obamacare and almost all of those were the older,sicker uninsured willing to pay the high premiums for insurance they couldnt get before. The rest were people who had individual insurance before and were looking for a better deal. Which explains why 22 of 23 state exchanges are closing and losing millions of dollars due to lack of enrollements and why insurers are leaving the exchanges.

So how did Obama get to claim 2o million? By doing what would have gotten the CFO of any company in America thrown in jail. He counted the same people twice. And three times. As you will see.

The first thing to know about Obamacare is that the public option, which was called "the centerpiece of healthcare reform" by Nancy Pelosi was something Obama had promised as part of his campaign as far back as 2007.

The public option not only could have passed easily since Obama was elected with the biggest Democratic congressional majority of any party in 60 years which included a 60-40 majority in the senate, it actually did pass. In the House. Why it never made it into law is because of one person. Barrack Obama. And the willinginess of Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi to go along. And then cover it up.

A CBS/ New York Times poll in 2009 showed 72% of the country wanted the public option and a staggering 66% said they'd be willing to pay higher taxes to get it. In other words it was a slam dunk both in terms of policy and politics. But as Democrats have shown ever since 2000, even when they can't lose they find a way. 

Obama, showing why he accomplished absolutely nothing in his 11 previous years of elected office before running for president, didn't have the principles, convictions, integrity  or values to stand up to the pressure from the health insurance companies who lobbied him hard to drop it because it was going to cost them money. It's hard to have the courage of your convictions when you have neither.

Putting the health of the insurance companies ahead of the health of the American people Obama caved in and even though the public option had already passed the House, instructed Harry Reid to remove it from the senate version of the bill even though the votes were there in the senate to pass it also. Then Obama lied about it.

Obama campaigned on the public option and universal healthcare as far back as 2007 and every townhall meeting he had from June of 2009 till Feburary of 2010 was in support of the public option. In the end he proved what everyone knows now about Obama when it comes to anything whether healthcare reform or retaliation against Assad for using chemical weapons -- his word is worthless.

What the usual  sycophants and incompetents in the news media didn't notice, was that late in 2009 and early 2010 the banners at Obama's town hall meetings changed from " healthcare reform" to " health insurance reform" signaling something was up. It was the first time the word "insurance" had been substituted for "care". And no one noticed. And Obama  wasn't going to say.

It was the first indication Obama was going to pull a double cross. And he did.He had Reid remove the public option from the ACA, and replaced it with a provision allowing the insurance companies to write the part of the bill related to the exchanges, what would be offered and at what cost. If most Americans are slaves to the insurance companies when it comes to health care,(and they are) what Obama did was nothing less than the equivalent of letting the plantation owners write the Emancipation Proclimation.  The irony is self evident. It was Obama's cave in that is the sole reason the public option was not included in the ACA. And Obama, Democrats, and their Tea Party Left support groups like MoveOn and DFA have been lying about it and covering it up ever since.

It could be argued that the public option was the most important piece of legislation in terms of equality,establishing healthcare as a civil right, getting healthcare coverage for anyone who wanted it including the 40 million uninsured, something that had eluded presidents since Teddy Roosevelt, and doing more good for more people by leveling the playing field in a fundamental aspect of American life, than anything since the Civil Rights Act of 1965. And it was Obama who killed it.

When Jim Lerher at PBS asked Obama about the ACA being passed, Obama said " I got 98% of everything I wanted". Lerher pointed out there was no public option. Obama's answer? " I never campaigned for a public option". Which belongs with the Nixon claim that Watergate was just a third rate burglary.

Even the usually Obama-friendly Lawrence O'Donnell on MSNBC  said Obama's statement was clearly a lie and within 24 hours Youtube exploded with Obama speeches going back to 2007 where he campaigned and advocated for both universal healthcare and the public option. Its goes without saying that the news media ignored Obama's biggest lie up to that point which concerned one of the most important policy decisions of the last 50 years and over 300 million Americans yet runs headlines about  trivialities involving Trump's verbal gaffes and sarcasms.

In 2010, after the ACA was passed without the promised public option, Democratic voters paid the Democrats back handing them the biggest congressional defeat of any party in 80 years. Only two years into Obama's administration and winning the biggest congressional majority of any party in 60 years. And it was the sell out of the public option that is the sole reason.They lied about it then, and still do.

It was the same in 2014 after the first full year of Obamacare. The miserable performance of Obamacare was bad enough. But Obama added to it by throwing Senate Democrats under the bus just in time for the election. This time it was a lie of omission by Obama. To save his own skin.

 Insurance polices were being cancelled and Republicans pounced pointing out Obama's promise that " if you like your health insurance you can keep your health insurance.

It caused many Democrats in the senate up for re-election to scramble. CNN repeatedly showed video clips of  town hall meetings where Obama said " if you likeyour health   insurance you can keep your health insurance". Except that Wolf Blitzer and everyone else at CNN as well as  other journalists,producers and editors were either too incompetent, ignorant or too intimidated to point out that Obama never said "if you like your health insurance you can keep your health insurance" about Obamacare. Not once. He said it only about the public option which he was promoting at the time and eventually dropped. Obama said it defending the public option against Republican attacks that it was a government take over of healthcare. He pointed out it was only an option, no one was being forced to enroll in the public option and that " if you like your health insurance you can keep your health insurance".  He never made that claim about what became Obamacare.

Rather than point that out, Obama kept his mouth shut. He let himself and senate Democrats take an enormous hit on credibility rather than remind people that he dropped the public option. It would also be an admission  that when he said he never campaigned for the public option he lied.

The  last thing Obama wanted to do was remind people of the public option in the first place and  how much more effective it would have been than the junk called Obamacare.

 The result was senate Democrats in 2014 took an enormous hit in the November elections which  wiped out what was left of their slim majority.

The second thing to know,the politics aside is that as policy Obamacare is a massive failure, something Democrats and Obama's sycophants in the news media still wont admit.

As pointed out before, healthcare reform was supposed to do two things: get healthcare coverage for the 35-40 million who couldn't afford it and so didn't have it and bring down the obscene cost of health care and health insurance for people who did. Its been a total failure on both counts where the public option would have succeeded.

Typcial of media sycophants, a recent article in the Huffington Post by a reporter named Jeffery Young  pandering for White House wrote an article with the headline, "Obamacare Cuts Uninsured to Single Digits".

 Except as pointed out earlier, the  single digit is 9%.If the number of uninsured dropped only by 3%, the converse is that 97% of the uninsured looked at what Obamacare plans offered the last 3 years and said,"no thanks".

Almost none of the 32 million younger healthier uninsured signed up, the group every economist said was needed to make the bait and switch version of Obamacare work.

That they didnt shouldnt have surprised anyone. In places like New York City, rural Georgia, Montana, Wyoming and other parts of the country a single person making $40,000 a year and so not  eligible for subsidies under Obamacare were looking at Bronze Plans intended to appeal to those who couldnt afford insurance that came with premiums as high as $600 a month, $6500 deductibles and 40% co-pays. No one in their right minds making $40,000 a year is going to pay $7200  a year for premiums for a health insurance policy where they have to pay out another $6500 before the policy covers everything and a 40%  co-pay along the way. And just to rub more salt in the Obamacare wound, those policies were not accepted by the best doctors and hospitals. There are people who bought Bronze policies who had to travel more than 100 miles one way to see a doctor or clinic who would take the low end policies.

Welcome to Obamacare. Welcome to Hillary Clinton's idea of healthcare reform and what she has been defending.Welcome to Clinton's attack against Sanders' for saying Obamacare wasn't good enough and needed to be replaced with universal healthcare then accusing Sanders of  "living in a hermetically sealed world".

The 3% who did buy in are for the most part the older, sicker and most desperate of the uninsured. Which is one reason why Aetna and United are leaving. They are losing tens of millions covering those people and dont have the 32 million younger healthier uninsured that the insurance pools needed for balance because the policies offered through Obamacare were all overpriced junk.

So much junk that a year ago Obama admitted  in the New York Times that the low end bronze plans  were "substandard." An antiseptic way of saying "garbage",

As for Obamacare numbers Obama has lied about them too from the beginning.

Starting with the numbers announced for 2013, the first year of Obamacare and the exchanges, Obama and the White House started cooking the books. They claimed in the first year there were 7 million enrollments. First, even if the number was real (it wasn't) 7 million people signing up for health insurance out of 40 million who didnt have it because they couldnt afford it is pathetic. The public option would have covered all of them. But the real Obamacare sign up number is lower.

According to the insurance companies who are to be believed more than White House spin, 20% of those who signed up never sent in their first month's premium which invalidated the enrollments. Which brings the number down to  5.6 million.  Another 5-10% (we'll use the lower number) were multiple enrollments by the same person who thought because of  the infamous web site glitches the first one didn't go through.  That brings the number down to 5.3 million. And another 5% lied on their applications about their income to try and qualify for subsidies they didnt qualify for bringing the actual number down to about 5 million or less not 7 million. And that includes all sign ups which included people who had health insurance and were looking for a better deal, not just those who previously didn't have insurance.

The next year Obama announced that the number of people who signed up for health insurance in 2014 who didn't have it before was 16 million. He said it repeatedly. He said in a speech to Catholic Hospitals. He said in his State of the Union message.  It was and still is a lie, the kind of careful lie where Obama has given himself an excuse if he was caught.

The claimed number of sign ups in 2014 was 9 million. That number is also inflated for the same reasons cited earlier the true number closer to 8 million. But what Obama did in announcing 16 million was he counted the same people twice.

Obama got to 16 million by taking the 9 million claimed for 2014 and the 7 million claimed (falsely) for 2013 and added them to get to 16 million. The problem is that most of the 9 million in 2014  were part of the 7 million in 2013 and were renewing policies from the year before. They were not new sign ups. They were renewals from the year before. But Obama counted them as if they were new. They werent. They were the same people who bought policies in 2013. There were less than 2 million new enrollees in 2014. So the real total number of sign ups by the end of 2014 was about 6.7 million nationaly with adjustments. A pathetically small number. Which is why the biggest insurers are getting out, why premiums have skyrocketed and why healthcare exchanged have closed from lack of interest.  Obama's claim that 16 million who previously didn't have health insurance got it through Obamacare is not only a lie its fraud.

Obama and Democrats and media parrots now claims 20 million in 2016. But the total number of those previously uninsured who now have insurance in the 8 years since 2008 is actually about 9-10 million out of the 40 million who had no coverage in 2008.And many of as a result of unemployment going from 9% to 4.9%.

It still leaves about 30 million today without healthcare coverage.Of that 9-10 million reduction only 6 million+ at most are a direct result of Obamacare. The rest are people who were unemployed in 2008 and went back to work or those who became eligible for expanded Medicaid, the only partially positive thing about Obamacare but still a failure in that it was left to the states to choose to implement or not. And many didnt.In Louisiana for example there are 278,000 people qualified for expanded Medicaid who didn't get it because the state chose not to participate.

As for the cost of healthcare in general, the second major prong of healthcare reform, that too has been a disaster.

Had tens of millions signed up for the public option as the polls showed they would have,the government would have had the leverage to negotiate better costs in both drugs and treatment. It would have brought the cost of health care way down,especially drugs. Obamacare? Costs keep skyrocketing but Obama calls it a success because costs are going up at a slower rate than before, which is Cuckoos Nest thinking which says an insane system of health care costs are still getting more insane but at a slower rate and thats success.

Premiums have been going up for everyone ever since Obamacare began and the biggest rise will be this year.  Insurers have submitted proposals around the country of increases from 8% to has high as 60%. And while states can make recommendations nothing they do is binding. Which means there could be an October surprise for Democrats when the actual numbers are released.  And with the steep rise in premiums, insurers leaving the marketplace and the state exchanges closing  there will be  disastrous Obamacare smoking guns that this time Obama, Hillary Clinton, Democrats and a sycophantic news media wont be able to cover up

Will the Inspector General Have the Courage and Integrity to Revoke Clinton's Clearances?

Anyone looking at Section K of State Department guidelines listing offenses regarding the handling of protected State Department information will come to the same inescapable conclusion -- Hillary Clinton blatantly and intentionally and willfully for the sake of her own convenience and to keep hidden from public view things she was doing she did not want the public to see, violated 5 specific guidelines that would lead to the revocation of any State Department employee's security clearances. Any one of them would have an employee's security clearances revoked. Clinton violated five.

There is  also  a separate section called "The Adjudication Process" which lays out guidelines for what the adjudicator can take into consideration when determining whether an individual who violated any of the guidelines should have their clearances revoked.

Included in the guidelines are three "mitigating circumstances" that an adjudicator can apply to a case. Hillary Clinton would not qualify for any of those mitigating circumstances. In fact her conduct and behavior could be concluded to be not mitigating, but aggravating circumstances and behavior.

The guidelines and violations committed by Clinton are so specific to her own conduct someone reading them would think they were written by Trey Gowdy the Republican Chair of the Benghazi Committee yesterday just to nail her. But they weren't. They have been in place since 2006 and Clinton was briefed on all of them when she became Secretary of State and even signed a pledge to uphold them and to see that others do too.

Clinton's violations are so egregious and specific they are beyond debate. And while Clinton once again was caught lying in an interview with Fox's Chris Wallace trying to claim that James Comey said she had told the truth to the American people when he said no such thing and it had already been concluded by the Inspector General that she had lied repeatedly to the American people about her server, what Comey did say was that anyone who did the things Clinton did, while he didn't believe was enough to send her to prison, was enough to face serious sanctions regarding her security clearances.

So the FBI Director is on record after a yearlong investigation as saying that Clinton did enough to warrant sanctions levied against her on her security clearances.

But that is not in Comey's hands as FBI Director. Its in the hands of the State Department Inspector General. And as a Democratic appointee one can only imagine the pressure being put on him now and how he is being told by almost everyone around him that he just cant do it -- he cant revoke her clearances no matter how clear and serious her violations are and be responsible for throwing the presidential election into unprecedented chaos. Not to mention becoming persona non grata in the Democratic party (as if given their unprecedented fraud, rigging, lying and fixing the nomination for Clinton that would matter to anyone with integrity).

One can almost hear the people around him telling him he just cant do it, to look the other way,how it will ruin his career, how he will turn the entire election and presidential campaign on its head, how it would change history and he'd be responsible because Clinton could no longer run because, you know, you cant have a president who is barred from looking at classified and Top Secret intelligence. Though to hear and read the justifications and rationalizations of some of her supporters despite her serial lying, rigging of the nomination process and violating national security guidelines,there are Clinton supporters who would vote for her even if it meant her having to wear an ankle monitor in the White House.

But as Secretary of State,which makes her top management, her violations are that much more egregious.It was her responsibility to make sure others adhered to security guidelines yet she was the worst and most willful offender.So much so that had she not been a presidential candidate or nominee her clearances would have been revoked by now.

There is also little doubt that someone connected to the Clinton campaign or a congressional Democrat has gotten a message through to the Inspector General that if he keeps his mouth shut and Clinton wins there is a nice big fat job in her administration waiting for him. Its called a bribe and thats how Washington works. And there is little doubt the bribe offer has been made because there is no doubt Clinton deserves to have her clearances revoked.

All anyone has to do is look at Section K, and look at items b,c,g,h,i and see that Clinton's violations are open and shut. Even Bill Clinton couldn't argue that she didn't violate every one of them.  Then read the "mitigating circumstances" below the itemized list and its clear there are no mitigating factors that apply to Hillary Clinton. To further understand the adjudication process one can scroll to the top of the guideline section and read them.

As for item "i:, no its not piling on as any one of Clinton's violations would be enough to disqualify her from keeping her security clearances and even four are more than bad enough. But "i" still applies. Comey could not say whether she was hacked or not, only that there were two attempts. He couldn't confirm one way or the other whether any documents were stolen or seen by hackers. So why does that make Clinton subject to violating item "i" along with the four others? Because the guidelines for the Adjudication Process has a sentence that makes clear that if there is any doubt regarding a person's fitness or any doubt as to whether a violation has been committed "the doubt is to be resolved in favor of National Security".The person does not get the benefit of the doubt, national security does.

It is for people to read Section K themselves with attention to items b,c,g,h,i, and then the 3 mitigating circumstances listed under, to decide for themselves if Clinton's violations were so clear, irrefutable, and indefensible that if it had been even a slightly lower but still high level State Department  employee their security clearances would have been revoked before now.

Add the aggravating circumstances related to Clinton's lack of character as per the guidelines, her personal responses, her  repeated and continued public lying and her high position  as head of the department, all factors in the evaluation process with the Inspector General already on the record pointing out that Clinton lied repeatedly to the public when she said that her private server had been approved, and there are no mitigating circumstances to save Clinton.

Clinton's server was not only never approved Clinton never even sought approval and had she the Inspector General said it would have been denied. Which is exactly why Clinton did not seek approval and went ahead and violated State Department and National Security guidelines anyway. Because she wanted to. And knew her server would not be approved. And thought she could get away with it.

Then add her refusal to cooperate with the Inspector General investigation and it makes clear no mitigating circumstances apply and all her character evaluations mitigate against Clinton and in fact are aggravating circumstances that would lead to anyone's national security clearances being revoked.

FBI Director Comey thought they should be. It will be up to the Inspector General and how much integrity and backbone he has as to stand up to an already exposed corrupt Democratic party as to whether he will do what is right and live up to his commitment to State Department rules and regulations on national security and do what James Comey said to Congress he would do if Comey was in his shoes.

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.

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.

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.

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.

 

 

 

 

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.