As you know, last Friday Wikileaks released 20,000 email that had been written to or from Hillary Clinton. Among other things, those email provided proof that, just as Bernie Sanders had claimed for most of a year, Hillary Clinton had been working to with the Democratic National Committee (the Democrat “establishment”) to rig the Democrat Primary to ensure that Hillary won and Bernie lost.
According to Yahoo! News (“Bernie Sanders says leaked emails show he was right about the DNC all along”):
“Bernie Sanders said on Sunday that the leak of Democratic National Committee emails that show its staffers plotting against him proves Chairwoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz should resign.
“Shortly after the interview aired, CNN reported that Wasserman Schultz will no longer serve as chair of the Democratic National Convention in Philadelphia, which began Monday.
“Sanders said the email leak proved once and for all that Wasserman Schultz was unfit to lead the committee.”
OK. It’s clear that, as Chairwoman of the Democratic National Committee, Debbie Wasserman Schultz conspired with Hillary to steal the Democrat primary nomination from the Bernie Sanders. And, it’s clear that, because she was biased, unfair and corrupt, Debbie Wasserman Schultz is “unfit” to serve as chairwoman of the Democratic National Convention.
OK—that’s all pretty clear.
But what about Hillary? Did Wasserman Schultz operate in a vacuum like some “lone gunman”? Or was she part of a conspiracy that included Hillary Clinton?
The answer’s obvious.
If Wasserman Schultz is “unfit” to serve as DNC chairwoman because she worked to rob Sanders of the Democratic nomination, why isn’t Hillary also deemed to be “unfit” to be nominated as Democratic candidate for the presidency? After all, wasn’t Hillary a co-conspirator with with Wasserman Schultz to steal the Democrat nomination from Bernie?
Is Hillary, like some Wall Street banks, “too big to jail”? Is Hillary so “special” that she gets to break the law, lie and cheat with impunity?
• Here’s another article from Yahoo! News (“Unconventional #43: DNC Day One—The ‘Post-Obama Drama’ Edition”) that says:
“Meanwhile, a devilish act of political subterfuge threatened to further inflame tensions in the final hours before the convention: Wikileaks’ release of nearly 20,000 emails suggesting that DNC Chairwoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz and other party leaders preferred presumptive nominee Hillary Clinton to underdog Bernie Sanders, even though they claimed to be impartial.”
There may have been a “devilish act of political subtrefuge,” alright, but was that “devilish act” performed by Wikileaks (by releasing the 20,000 email and blowing the whistle on the Democratic establishment’s determination to “fix” the Democratic primary)? Or, was that “devilish act” performed by “DNC Chairwoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz, Hillary Clinton and the Democratic Party’s “establishment” to rob Bernie Sanders of the election?
It seems to me that “devilish act of political subterfuge” was committed by the DNC’s “establishment” which included Hillary Clinton.
The Yahoo! News article is also a tad misleading that in that it seems to play down the significance of the 20,000 email by using the words “suggesting” and “preferred” which tend to understate the magnitude of the “crime” committed by the DNC and Hillary Clinton to steal the election from Bernie Sanders and disenfranchise millions of Democrat primary voters who supported Bernie Sanders. .
The term “presumptive nominee” implies that Hillary was sure to win the nomination anyway. Therefore, it didn’t really matter if Hillary and the DNC establishment conspired to rob Bernie Sanders because he was only an “underdog” who never stood a chance of winning, anyway.
In fact, there are reports that the Democratic establishment conspired to destroy about one million votes for Bernie in the California primary. It’s argued that if Bernie had received those million votes, he would’ve won the California primary and probably gained enough momentum to defeat Hillary in the balance of the primaries.
Bernie Sanders was not just some oddball “cummunist” who never stood a chance of winning the Democratic nomination for president. If the Democratic primary had been fair and square all along, Bernie might’ve beat Hillary. He was robbed of his chance to win by Hillary Clinton and the Democratic establishment.
Yahoo! News continues:
“Within minutes [after Bernie said the emails proved that Wasserman Schultz was “unfit”], CNN was reporting that DNC Rules Committee had relieved Wasserman Schultz of her role as convention chair.”
Insofar as the DNC Rules Committee acted “within minutes” to fire Wasserman Schultz, they did not read the email as merely “suggesting” that Wasserman Schultz and others merely “preferred” Hillary Clinton to Bernie Sanders. Instead, the DNC Rules Committee apparently read the email as compelling, unambiguous evidence that the Democratic “establishment” had worked with Hillary to rob Sanders.
Given the magnitude of this theft, somebody had to “take the rap”. It couldn’t be entire DNC establishment and it certainly couldn’t be Hillary Clinton, so—without any investigation, semblance of due process or clear evidence of probable cause—Debbie Wasserman Schultz was instantly nominated to “fall on her sword” and thereby remove the issue from the public forum.
In fact, the whole termination process moved so quickly, we have to presume that the DNC Rules Committee knew in advance that the plot against Sanders would be exposed and, once it was, somebody (Wasserman Schultz) would have to be instantly sacrificed to protect Hillary and/or the DNC “establishment”.
More, it’s interesting that, so far as I know, Wasserman Schultz never voiced a single, public objection to being fired, defamed or falsely accused. Wikileaks released some email; Sanders described the email as proof on TV; the DNC Rules Committee “instantly” fired Wasserman Schultz—and, Wasserman Schultz never once denied the accusations or complained that she was being railroaded or even treated unfairly.
She left her job “instantly” and without complaint.
I know that if I were suddenly, unexpectedly and unfairly fired from a job based on alleged corruption, I’d be yelling all the way out of my (former) employer’s building that I was being railroaded and that I was gonna sue every bastard in that corporation for defamation, deprivation of rights, genocide and treason! But that’s just me. Apparently, Debbie Wasserman Schultz is too nice a lady to react with rancor to being unjustly fired and defamed.
Or—maybe she knew that the evidence was clear and overwhelming that she (along with Hillary and the DNC establishment) were guilty as Hell or robbing Bernie and there was therefore no point to wasting time fighting for her reputation.
“It was an extraordinary last-minute upheaval that demonstrated how worried Team Clinton is about keeping everything copacetic at the Democratic National Convention.”
What did they mean by using the odd word “copacetic”? They meant “legal,” “ethical” and “fair”. They meant that the Democrats are already so “worried” about Clinton’s reputation as “crooked Hillary” that they don’t also want a “crooked Debbie Wasserman Shultz,” too. They don’t want to taint Hillary’s nomination with more evidence that the Democratic primary was rigged and her nomination was not just unfair, but was never, ever “inevitable”.
What about using the term “Team Clinton”? Shouldn’t that be “Gang Clinton”?
Will Democrats all unite behind Hillary if she’s knows to have stolen the Democratic nomination? Today’s (Tuesday’s) reports on DNC disruption by Sander’s supporters indicate that the answer is Nyet.
Still, if the recent release of email proving that there’s widespread corruption among Hillary supporters, there’s an even bigger implication:
Hillary couldn’t beat Bernie Sanders fair and square.
That means Hillary couldn’t come up with 51% of the votes without rigging the Democrat primary. To beat an aging communist, Hillary had to cheat. Hillary had to rob Sanders and disenfranchise Democratic voters to win the presidential nomination.
That theft implies that Hillary doesn’t even command the support of even half of Democratic voters. That does not bode well for her chances of being elected President.
“Rank and file Democrats had hoped, for instance, to abolish the process that gives Democratic superdelegates the power to tip a party primary toward their preferred candidate. More than 130,000 people signed a petition in support of the effort.
“But after several rounds of Rules Committee voting, the amendment was defeated 108 to 58.
Nevertheless, that proposed amendment demonstrates that the Democratic Party’s rank and file are almost as populist and anti-establishment as Republicans. The Democratic Party’s rank and file are almost as fed up with control by elitists as were the Republicans who nominated Trump. It’s reasonable to assume that some Sanders supporters who were disenfranchised by the DNC “elite” will vote Republican just to express their hostility against the elitists and the Democratic Party’s “establishment”.
The Republican establishment wanted to steal the nomination from Trump, but they were defeated. Those who the Republican establishment wanted to rob were pleased by their victory and Republican rank and file have therefore largely forgiven the Republican establishment for trying to steal the nomination from Trump.
Unlike the Republican establishment, the Democratic Party establishment succeeded in robbing Sanders and disenfranchising Sanders’ supporters. Sanders’ supporters can’t be pleased and are likely to hold a grudge over being disenfranchised.
Sanders supporters tend to be young and energetic and may be the primary source of passion in the Democratic Party. These are the kids who are willing to volunteer, work for nothing, man the phones and go door-to-door to hand out Democrat fliers. Those young, dedicated Sanders supporters are unlikely to forgive the Democrat establishment or give Hillary their full support in the general election. Hillary may have to do the door-to-door thing all by herself.
All of which suggests that Hillary may be heading for world-record defeat in November.
• The Republicans seemed to emerge from the Republican National Convention in a state of general unity. Almost all of the party rank and file seem to be not only supporting Trump but supporting Trump with great enthusiasm.
Will the Democratic National Convention be as successful at unifying behind Hillary as the Republicans were at unifying behind Trump?
We shall see—but it appears increasingly unlikely.
• One last point: There’s no doubt that Hillary and the Democrat establishment tried to steal the primary election from Bernie Sanders—and succeeded in doing so.
It’s unlikely that they have since “gotten religion” and are now determined to conduct a fair and honest campaign against Trump in the general election.
Note that, almost immediately after Wasserman Schultz was fired by the DNC Rule Committee for engaging in criminal and/or unethical conduct, Hillary (another woman famed for her predilection for criminal, unethical or even treasonous conduct) hired Debbie Wasserman Schulz to manage her national political campaign against Trump.
Li’l Debbie and Hillary—together again. So sweet.
Can this be love—or is it a gangsters convention?
You can bet that, just as Hillary and Debbie conspired to rob Bernie Sanders of the Democrat nomination, they’ll also conspire to rob Trump of the presidency.
This can’t be news to Trump. He must be preparing even now to run for office against two of the biggest gangstas’ molls ever seen in American politics. But there’d better be real security for November’s voting apparatus. If there’s any opportunity to steal one vote or 20 million, you can bet that Hillary will try to take advantage.
If I had to guess, I’d say that the primary determinant as to whether Trump wins or loses the November election may be the presence of massive numbers of knowledgeable, hard-nosed Republicans watching over the ballot boxes and/or election computers. If the vote can be protected, Trump will win. If the Republicans fail to protect the vote, Hillary and her gang may win the White House
If she is elected back into the White House, do you think she’ll steal the furniture and plates again when she leaves?