Tag Archives: Sanders

Hillary Is Winning Fair and Square And Is Headed To White House As Next and First Female President

Veteran journalist and political advisor Mr. Salim Lone has penned another article he posted on his Facebook that yet again contains a number of arguments regarding the ongoing Democratic primary contest between Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders; arguments which are either false or contrary to overwhelming facts and developments that undercut each one of them.
In a response to my last blog in which I disposed of similar arguments put forth by Salim, he responded to me by basically saying even though he appreciates what I said in as far as it helped him in thinking through some of the points better, he nonetheless doesn’t think we’ll ever agree because of our “fundamental approaches” to these issues.
Salim, I am not sure I know exactly what you mean by that but, reading through your new post, I find it compelling to respond in saying you’ve once again penned a piece deserving an award for both overstating and understating facts.
While you continue to rightly admit that Sanders has virtually no chance of beating Hillary on the delegate count, you nonetheless continue to advance arguments which totally ignore why that’s the case so, let me put them forth for you and others who refuse to accept them as the reality they are:
First, Hillary is winning in states that represent the core coalition of voters a Democrat must have on their side to win in November, namely, states with a diverse population while Sanders is winning in states that are predominantly white–and some of them 90%+ white which needs no genius to figure that alone would be a reason to make him unelectable in November as a Democrat.
Second, Hillary is not only winning states that have the diverse core coalition of voters a Democrat must have to win in November, she’s winning them across the country and, come June 7, 2016 when she once again wins big in California, Hillary would have won in every state and region in the country she needs to win in November so your argument implying that she’s only strong in the South is simply false with a subset of that argument being Hillary cannot win in states that don’t have blacks, which is true but that’s true of any Democratic Party candidate–an argument that has a racist undertone by some but not all of those who advance it.
Third, because delegates are apportioned proportionally in all states in Democratic primaries, it’s irrelevant how many states one wins, what matters is how many delegates one gets with each victory. On the other hand and given this very fact, when one has a pledged delegate lead half-way through the contest as the one Hillary has, it’s impossible for anyone to catch-up with her, let alone overtake her which is doubly so in a two-person race and what a sweet fact for Hillary who experienced that in 2008 when she was unable to catch up with then Senator Barrack Obama who had an even lesser lead at this point than the one she has over Sanders.
I could go on to lay out more facts but these are the key facts that make Hillary nomination all but assured and her matching on to keep the White House in Democratic hands well within reach.
You’ve also made some false arguments that I think should be responded to:
It’s not true that the primary process underway in the Democratic Party is the product of a “broken political system.” Just because your candidate is not winning doesn’t make the system “broken” and if by “broken” you mean a system that has in place a mechanism to make sure a fringe candidate who cannot win in November does not secure the nomination, then your issue many not be the system at all but failure to grasp the fact parties are there to win not to experiment with insurgency.
You say CNN reported that the Hillary campaign said they will embark on “destroying” Sanders beginning tomorrow but, as a staunch Hillary supporter, I can tell you that’s a moronic assertion I seriously doubt came from her campaign and if it did, she should fire whoever the moron is who said it.
Hillary need not do anything different than she has been doing to win in the states that she must win and, quite frankly, I was impressed though not surprised that Sanders did not attack Hillary at all in his victory speech last night; what a civil gentleman he has been and I know Hillary is no dummy not to reciprocate but that doesn’t mean neither can’t be critical of the other in pointing out their policy differences or, occasionally, pointing out where surrogates have crossed the line into lying as Hillary did the other day though I wouldn’t have advised her to react as she did.
Finally, lost in all of your arguments–valid or otherwise is failure to acknowledge the simple fact even most in the media fail to do so as well and that is, Sanders is not a Democrat but Hillary is.
One would expect that a life-long Democrat is the nominee of the Democratic Party and not someone who has been absent from its battles most of his life–how noble is that?
That’s not to say Sanders has not here and there done things one can say are commendable and in tandem with Democratic Party principles, he has and deserves credit for them but there’s a reason he’s not a Democrat and instead calls himself a Democratic Socialist which, in my view, he might as well have declared himself a candidate for that party instead of the Democratic party and since it doesn’t exist, he might have as well registered one so, if he’s to vie as a Democrat, let him not express shock or insinuate something sinister that the Democratic Party “establishment” prefers one of their own.
Indeed, this is the single reason why Hillary has the support of 400+ Super-delegates (elected officials and former elected officials in the Democratic party with votes at the Democratic Party Convention) and Sanders only has 31.
Given the large delegate lead Hillary has and will maintain through the end of the primaries, these Super-delegates will have no say in her being the nominee as the voters would have spoken through the ballot that she should be the nominee therefore all this sudden talk about Sanders somehow erasing the lead and somehow turning this into an open convention is just that and more–talk and wishful thinking that has no basis in fact or reality or, more accurately, in the face of facts and reality.
In sum, get ready to say hello to Hillary the Democratic Party nominee and support her for the general election if you value the party and what it stands for compared to the Republican Party or stay home or support someone else; that’s your right.
For those who bet, the money is on Hillary both winning the Democratic Primary and going on to be elected as the next and first female president of the United States of America and what a victory that would be in this already circus of an election season.
Leave a comment

Posted by on April 6, 2016 in Politics, Uncategorized


Tags: , , ,

Putting All Salim Lone’s Arguments Against Hillary Clinton To Rest As To Her Strengths and Weaknesses

DEM 2016 Debate

Democratic presidential candidates Sen. Bernie Sanders, of Vermont, left, and Hillary Rodham Clinton talk before the CNN Democratic presidential debate Tuesday, Oct. 13, 2015, in Las Vegas. (AP Photo/David Becker)

Veteran journalist and political advisor Mr. Salim Lone recently penned an article he posted on his Facebook I found quite interesting in that it contains a number of arguments regarding the ongoing Democratic primary involving Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders; arguments which were not surprising as both he and others have argued the same or similar arguments in the past but, what’s surprising is how persistent Lone remains with those arguments despite the overwhelming facts and developments that undercut each one of them.

Since I have been on leave from penning long essays, please indulge me as I take apart our good friend’s arguments; Salim

You say,

The only real question thrown up by last weekend’s astounding 82, 75 and 71 percent Sanders’ primary victories against front-runner Hillary Clinton was whether this meant that Hillary’s electability in the November Presidential election was in some sort of jeopardy, especially as a few days earlier she had also lost the two of the three primaries in Utah and Idaho by equally huge margins, while beating Bernie in the other primary by a small 14-point margin.

You get an award here for both overstating and understating facts; Sander’s wins last week by large margins were neither surprising nor “astounding” given the simple fact Hillary did not even bother campaigning in those states, and, more importantly, none of those states have the voting coalition for Democrats—they’re all caucus and predominantly white states the likes of which Sanders has been doing extremely well.

Someone reading your opening without knowing what happened before these latest round of voting would have no idea that Hillary walloped Sanders in the two previous contest, including Super Tuesday when her firewall was shown in its full light and the following contest when she did the same by sweeping all five states at play, including Ohio, Illinois, and Missouri, which she had to win to put away Sanders and his argument that she was vulnerable in the rush belt states—an exaggerated argument merely based on his fluke wining of Michigan, a state all polls were predicting Hillary would win big only to narrowly lose to Sanders.

You say,

But in one of the more extreme examples of the herd-like capacity of the US media to follow Establishment narratives, and as reflected in the NY Times article below, no reporting or discussion even hinted at whether these huge losses revealed some latent problems that Hillary might face in November election.

While it’s true the media earlier on did not pay much attention to Sanders’ insurgent campaign, all this changed after the Iowa and New Hampshire contests where one can make a good case the media was for all practical purposes and intent rooting for Sanders to do better not because they suddenly didn’t like Hillary but simply to make the race more interesting and they did.

Until Super Tuesday when as noted above, the firewall Hillary had erected to stop any Sanders momentum did its job with her impressive victories on Super Tuesday but did not completely knock out Sanders who was counting on recovering from the blows if he won in Ohio and Missouri as he and his campaign were hoping to win next.

Those hopes were dashed when Sanders lost both Ohio and Missouri and the rest of the states that had contests that week, namely, Illinois, North Carolina and Florida.

This particular sweeping win by Hillary removed any doubts that Hillary will be the Democratic nominee as she increased her delegate lead over Sanders to more than 300—a number it’s simply impossible for Sanders to chip away significantly, let alone erase and overtake her to be the nominee.

To put that in context, Obama’s lead was by 200 delegates at exactly that point in 2008 and Hillary could never catch up no matter what other victories she racked up after that same thing with Sanders he can never catch up with Hillary even if he wins all remaining states—unless he wins by 30-40 points in those states, something nobody serious thinks he can because he can’t.

Forget about Wisconsin and Wyoming which Sanders can win by a small margin and split the delegates as usual but, when Hillary wins big in New York on April 19—a state which even Sanders admits he has no chance of even coming close to winning, and when she also wins big a week later in Pennsylvania, then expect to see the “Establishment media” all but completely ignore Sanders as they focus fully on the more exciting Republican primary reality TV show.

You say,

Instead the ENTIRE media coverage focused exclusively on asserting, and repeating ad nauseam, that these gargantuan rejections of Hillary in five successive contests in important states did not mean that Sanders now stood a better chance of winning the Democratic nomination.

Again, these victories by Sanders in states he was expected to win as he did were not “gargantuan rejections of Hillary”—not by any objective measure; in fact, in none of those states is a Democrat expected to win in November so let’s put those victories in the column they belong and that is, “Life Support” so Sanders could live to fight another day, which is on April 19, 2016 when as noted above, Hillary will finally put him away.

Neither did these victories suddenly make the case to all Democrats that Sanders is a better candidate than Hillary in the general election; the converse of that assessment remains true despite those wins and the media so reporting is not on orders of the “establishment” but merely reporting the facts as they should.

You say,

The media also highlighted that these states demographics played to Bernie’s strengths and that in any case the victories were expected. When Hillary wins expected primaries, that has never prevented a fawning media from hailing these as important triumphs.

There’s a simple reason why Hillary winning big in the states she has is a big deal and why Sanders winning big in the states he has is not a big deal and neither case does that have to do with the candidates individually but has everything to do with the party as a whole.

Without going into the weeds with this let’s just say Hillary is winning states which have voters that comprise the core of the Democratic Party while Sanders is not.

Put another way, were Sanders to put together even a small string of victories in these diverse states going for Hillary, the narrative would change and you’ll see the media bring up drums and start singing on the streets cheering him on but that’s not happening and will not happen given what’s obvious as has been proven thus far and that is, Hillary has a strong-hold on these important core Democratic voters, namely, minorities, older voters and women.

You say,

The mainstream media’s line of reporting would have been justified if many people thought that there was a serious chance of Bernie actually winning the Democratic nomination, but not even many staunch supporters, including myself, think there is any serious possibility of that happening, even though we wish it could!

If you only posted this and said no more, you would not have a response from yours truly other than saying he’s in agreement.

You say,

The purpose of the narrow media narrative therefore was to squelch any notion that these huge losses might portend serious difficulties for Hillary in the November race against Trump or whoever. No doubt must be planted about Hillary’s unstoppable march to the Presidency!

Given it’s not the case that these were “huge losses” in the larger picture and particularly given Hillary did not even bother to campaign in those states, it therefore follows her not winning those states has no implication over her winning prospects in November.

You say,

Hillary has a significant lead in delegates from the early rounds, since she has won many primaries in the South, which is America’s most conservative region and from where Bill Clinton hails. But the scale of her recent losses point to the problems that will lurk for her in the presidential election. In the last 6 primaries, Bernie has won twice as many delegates as Hillary, 128 to 65.

Again, you’re overstating the significance of Sanders wins in the latest contests you can’t ignore the fact Hillary has won not only the Southern states she had to win, she has also won in Ohio, Missouri and Florida none of which are conservative states but that’s not all; when it’s all said and done, she would have won every state Democrats must win to win in November.

You say,

Outside the South, Bernie has in fact decisively won 14 primaries, while she has won only three, Nevada, Ohio and Arizona, decisively. In 4 others, she has won only by razor-thin margins – Missouri, Massachusetts, Iowa and Illinois, by 0, 1, 2 and 3 delegates respectively. So outside the South, Sanders has won 14 primaries and to her 7.

As noted above, this is a distinction without a difference when the question is who between Hillary and Sanders is better placed to win in November against whoever emerges as the wounded Republican nominee.

You say,

In the Wisconsin primary next Tuesday, Hillary’s 40-point lead has shrunk to 4 points.

Nothing wrong with that; Sanders—according to polls—came back from far behind and narrowly over Hillary in Michigan gaining steam but that took him nowhere. He can win Wisconsin and the outcome won’t be any better given the massive delegate lead Hillary has over him—a fact you yourself have acknowledged above.

You say,

She has been bleeding support outside the South to Bernie for months, even though a year ago most Americans had never heard of Bernie Sanders.

Besides there being no evidence of Hillary “bleeding support in the South to Bernie for months” it’s never clear why people who make this argument that Sanders was an unknown before he entered the Democratic primary it undercuts their other argument that he’s matched better one-on-one with any of the potential Republicans in November.

Let’s just say by the time any of those candidates are half-way done in “introducing” Sanders to America, even the staunchest of his supporters wouldn’t recognize him and some of those now saying they like him may actually go to the polls to vote against him!

That’s precisely the reason why Hillary has a staggering lead in pledged delegates and as icing on the cake, he only has 31 Super Delegates supporting him while Hillary has 469 and please let nobody buy the phony argument that the Super Delegates system is “rigged” in favor of Hillary; it’s not, rather, that’s a system in place for the party to avoid precisely what’s going on in the Republican Party—which is fully and wholly consistent with all applicable democratic principles on suffrage.

You say,

Hillary’s problem is her unfavorable ratings among voters, which is why she lost to the virtually unknown African American Barrack Obama in 2008, when she was presumed to be a shoo-in for the Democratic nomination.

False. Hillary’s favorability ratings were consistently above 50% throughout the 2008 primary season and only fell below that (49%) in June when she conceded to Obama—a phenomenon which could be the case for Sanders as well if continues to challenge Hillary after it’s unarguably clear he cannot overtake Hillary which will be the case after the next round of voting.

Obama’s victory over Hillary in the 2008 primary had nothing to do with her favorability ratings neither did his win later on in November had much to do with merely the fact he’s half-white.

Obama’s victory had a lot to do with putting together a shrewd campaign that took advantage of a number of favorable dispositions in a political climate where it was time to elect the first black president as part of that disposition Hillary is following the same playbook with minor modifications to account for the unpredictable Clown she’s likely to face in November or whoever the divided Republicans put forth as their wounded nominee.

You say,

All this shows how vulnerable Hillary will be as the Democratic candidate in November.

No it doesn’t.

You say,

Her source of strength among the Democratic base at the moment is the South, but the Southern states are heavily Republican and Democrats have trouble winning many of them.

False; Hillary’s source of strength are the core coalition of the Democratic Party: Minorities (especially Blacks and Hispanics, Older Voters and Women add that a good doze of non-angry white men and a good chunk of Millenials she’s likely to get, anyway, she’s good to go to the White House as the next and first female president of these United States of America.

You say,

So in November, if she beats Bernie for the nomination, she will need very heavy turn outs in the non-Southern states, which at the moment have been voting for Sanders more than for her.

Again; not true! Hillary has been winning in all regions and, even more importantly, of the 7 swing states—which have all voted, Sanders has won in only two (New Hampshire and Colorado) while Hillary has won the rest (Ohio, Nevada, Virginia and Florida) and, as noted above, she wins New York and Pennsylvania you’ll see even Sanders himself change the tone of his campaign to be more about the message candidate he has been and in time concede the nomination to Hillary and start working together with all other good Democrats in uniting the party and focusing their energy on what’s even more important and that is, defeating whoever the Republicans put forth as their wounded nominee come November.

This is potentially a source of grave danger to her and the Democratic party, as the most energised grass roots Democratic group active in the election, the young liberal voters, who, as Amy Chozick of the NY Times wrote, “are not only flocking to Sanders but are turned off by Hillary’s financial views and practices.”

There’s no doubt Sanders has an enthusiastic following, especially the younger voters akin to that on the Trump camp but surveys clearly show only a small fraction of Sanders followers will not vote for Hillary in November, which is not good but it’s nothing unlike what has happened before in both parties and whoever is the nominee of either party knows Job No. 1 after nomination, is uniting the party and bringing those who did not support them on board.

Let me not write with glee what I think the prospects for a united party are for Republicans given the surreal primary they’re going through but any Democrat can sigh a sigh of relief we have nothing of the kind going on in our camp and it’ll be—as one prominent newspaper put it, idiotic for Democrats not to rally behind their nominee and hold on to the White House, if not regain control of the Senate and more.

You say,

Democrats should be seriously considering such issues, which are well known, and yet the pliant, pro-Establishment Democratic media, heavily pro-Clinton and an equally strongly anti-Sanders, has yet to touch on this fundamental issues, even though it spends hours or pages each days talking about every aspect of the election.

Your entire premise is false so is your conclusion for if Sanders were to win in any of the key states that matter to Democrats such as Virginia or Florida or New York next week for that matter, you’ll see the same media turn on Hillary as you have never seen and trump that up to no end fact is, he’s not winning those states and cannot and therefore the media is simply reporting that fact you cannot fault them for it, nor should you tag them with these labels that don’t stand to even simple scrutiny as to their coverage of Hillary and Sanders.

The essence of the problem is how will Hillary and the Democratic party woo the vast and passionate Sanders’ following which is turned off by both Clinton and the Democratic establishment’s practices.

This is the same question that was asked of Hillary supporters in 2008 when many of them were disillusioned and even mad that then some unknown Senator was doing so well against Hillary and one group led by a well-known socialite went on to form PUMA (Party Unity My Ass) to actively campaign against Obama, which they did and we all know what happened.

As noted above, once Hillary is nominated, there will be enough time to unite the party behind her and those Democrats and others who value and support what the party stands for as opposed to what the Republican Party stands for would rally behind her and the rest will be history.

This is not something that would happen in a vacuum; rather, starting from Hillary herself, the President and the rest of us who are Democrats or Independents leaning Democratic will have to do our part as we are and lay down a red carpet to welcome disenchanted Republicans and, again, the rest will be history.

These Sanders foot soldiers are essential to a Democratic victory.

Agreed but in the same vein all core constituencies of the Democratic Party are.

You say,

At the moment, with both Trump and Cruz self-destructing, all polls show that both Sanders and Hillary will beat either of them in November – but Sanders wins by much bigger margins.

I have addressed this above but, to repeat, Sanders doing as good as he is vz these Republicans is simply a function of the fact he has not been the subject of that staple of all politics, negative attacks which, take my word for it, were he to be the nominee, he would be lucky if he carries his own state of Vermont.

You say,

He also comfortably beats the third Republican candidate, John Kasich, but Hillary loses to him.

Not big deal here; Kasich has as much chance of being the Republican nominee as you and I and, even if he were and somehow was elected president, Independents like yours truly would not mind at all as we know on most of the things that matter to us, he will do the right thing.

Conversely, were the Clown or Cruz to be nominated and somehow a majority of voters lost their minds and voted either of them to the presidency, some of us who have been struggling as to whether to return home permanently or stay here will have our decision made that much easier as we start packing.

Of course, we’ll be confronted with the same question upon arrival in Kenya or soon thereafter as to whether or not to pack and leave again, depending on whether our candidate of choice is the winner in our own presidential election!

Such is life; at least as we know it now.



Posted by on March 31, 2016 in Politics, Uncategorized


Tags: , , , , ,

Why Hillary Clinton Will Not Be Indicted


There’s no doubt the US presidential election of 2016 is thus far the most fascinating and equally baffling election anyone alive has seen, judging from what the dinosaurs in political punditry are saying certainly nothing those of us headed there have seen.

The hijacking of the Republican Party by a reality television star and sometimes successful real estate developer known as Donald Trump is in by itself the very definition of strange politics where nothing makes sense, especially when the clown seems to essentially defy the laws of gravity.

On the Democratic side, the strange phenomena is a Socialist Bernie Sanders giving Hillary Clinton a run for her money, at least in the only 3 states where his socialism finds home among Democrats who support him.

The odds on favorite to win the Democratic Party nomination, however, is still Hillary who is also likely to win come November against anyone who emerges as the wounded Republican nominee, especially if the wounded nominee is either Donald Trump or Ted Cruz neither of whom have a chance against Hillary unless Trump flips and gives the middle finger to those who nominated him and abandons all the crazy and impossible promises he has and continues to make thus far in which case he might avoid losing in a landslide and minimizes losses down the ticket when Hillary emerges as the victor.

But Republicans’ first major obstacle to regaining the White House is Hillary that’s why their strategy has been and continues to be finding a way of derailing or stopping her from being nominated because they know they just can’t stop her once she’s nominated.

The irony is, they must also find a way to stop either Trump or Ted Cruz to stand a chance of winning the presidency, let alone other offices down the line.

When 4 Americans were killed in Libya back in 2012 including the US Ambassador there and it later emerged that the Obama administration had mischaracterized the nature of the attack and in particular, who was behind it, Republican operatives got on their knees, put their hands together and looking to heaven thanked God for the tragedy.

This was an opportunity, in their view, to get rid of Hillary or at least damage her enough to derail her match to the White House as president.

This is because Hillary having been Secretary of State at the time the attacks occurred and having essentially been the architect of the US policy that led to the toppling of Libya’s leader Muamar Gaddafi which in turn led to creating the environment under which the attacks took place, Republicans were determined to wrap the failed policy around Hillary and use the four tragic deaths as the noose to strangle and kill her politically.

That strategy was in full throttle and making significant progress as Hillary’s honesty and trustworthy numbers steadily got worse until God smiled on her as Representative Kevin MacCarthy shocked everyone by publicly admitting what Democrats knew but could not prove and that’s, the Benghazi Committee—one of several Republicans had convened since the attack—was put together simply to hurt Hillary politically.

While this admission cost MaCarthy ascendancy to the Speakership and possibly earned him a spot in the annals of US history albeit for the wrong reasons, the admission uncurled the noose around Hillary’s neck breathing a new life to her political life from which she continues to benefit as she resumes her position as the presumptive nominee for Democrats and ultimately capturing the big trophy and that’s keys to the White House.

Hillary, however, is not in the clear as she must first get to the nomination and actually get nominated and every Republican and foe of hers who prays, prays and hopes that doesn’t happen which can only be the case if she’s indicted over the use of her private server to conduct official business when she was Secretary of State.

Those who have never prayed, are praying for the first time that she’s indicted but in the minds of her enemies, she’s already indicted, convicted and sent to jail even though none of that will happen in reality.

Most objective lawyers who have analyzed Hillary’s use of a private server, however, have come to the conclusion that Hillary cannot be indicted, based on what’s known about the facts and it’s unlikely any facts will emerge to change the outcome.

Providing a detailed analysis of the legal issues leading to this conclusion is beyond this article’s scope but if interested, No, Hillary Clinton Did Not Commit A Crime is a good analysis as to why.

Which brings me to this conclusion for reasons separate and apart from the analysis Dan Abrams provides in the article linked above that yours truly and most objective legal analysts agree with and that is, Hillary can also not be indicted for political reasons.

Let’s assume for the sake of argument that the FBI director recommends that Hillary should be indicted. Under US law, the Attorney General (AG) has the final say whether or not to bring charges of this kind against anyone.

On the other hand, even though technically under the AG, the FBI Director is an independent office so its director can conceivably make decisions that are antithetical to his boss (the AG) or even opposed by the President, who is their boss—and nothing will happen to him.

In short, the AG can’t be fired for simply taking some action that’s inconsistent with the president’s wishes or interests because the protection against arbitrary firing is in his appointment and confirmation his termination can only be for cause and recommending the prosecution of Hillary is not cause.

The question then becomes, what would happen were the FBI Director to recommend that Hillary be indicted?

There are three options: One, the AG shelves the recommendation where it collects dust for several months going into the first months of Hillary’s administration in which case what to do with it would be obvious (hint: nothing). Two, the AG can empanel a jury and have Hillary indicted. Three, she can receive the recommendation and declare to the world “after carefully reviewing the recommendation, I have concluded there’s no sufficient legal basis to seek an indictment.”

In the informed opinion of this writer, even though the first option is extremely attractive and less problematic for the AG or president for that matter, the third option would be the case even if there’s evidence gathered to indict a hapless and average Joe or Jane Doe.

This is because in American jurisprudence, one has traditionally been deemed to be innocent until proven guilty but this notion is increasingly being turned on its head to the point it’s now the case one is guilty until proven innocent, especially in politically charged cases.

Thus, in the event Hillary is indicted, that would be the equivalent of having her declared she’s guilty as charged long before even a trial takes place to put the government to task in proving the case beyond a reasonable doubt, which no one serious who knows anything about criminal law other than hapless partisans thinks they can.

Indicting Hillary will therefore be grossly unfair and irreparably so, especially given the fact as noted above, it’s more likely than not that she will ultimately be acquitted of all charges were she to be charged and therefore in hindsight be a victim of an overambitious prosecution that serves nobody any good other than those baying for her political blood and throwing the Democratic Party into a spin that could only be worse and fatalistic than the mess Republicans find themselves.

That’s a prospect no president would want for his or her party as a legacy and the AG knows that so she would do the right thing without the President even as suggesting that she does so and follow either of the two options above and certainly not having Hillary indicted.

It’s exactly what a Republican president would want done under identical circumstances.
In other words, it’s as old-fashioned politics as it can be that’s not to say it would be the case were the circumstances different, say, an open and shut case of criminal conduct.

That’s not the case here therefore expect Hillary to continue marching to White House this time and the next and first female person to hold that powerful office.

Leave a comment

Posted by on February 11, 2016 in Law, Politics


Tags: , , , ,