Monday, June 20, 2016


Beneath the Spin * Eric L. Wattree

A Princeton University study has found that the United States is no longer a democracy - it is now an oligarchy, run by the rich. quotes Prof. Martin Gilens of Princeton and Prof. Benjamin I. Page of Northwestern University as saying, "Multivariate analysis indicates that economic elites and organized groups representing business interests have substantial independent impacts on US government policy, while average citizens and mass-based interest groups have little or no independent influence."

The article goes on to quote Eric Zuess, in an article in Counterpunch magazine, as saying "American democracy is a sham, no matter how much it's pumped by the oligarchs who run the country (and who control the nation's "news" media)." He goes on to say, "The US, in other words, is basically similar to Russia or most other dubious 'electoral' 'democratic' countries. We weren't formerly, but we clearly are now."
I've known about this study for over a couple of years now, and I've written about it several times, but the blatantly cavalier attitude in which the Democratic establishment has treated it's rank-and-file constituents during the current primary has now driven the point home to me in a big way, and we'd better do something about it, while we still can - and we should start with Hillary Clinton, and her crime partner, "Bigshot Willie." 
The Clintons acted with great enthusiasm and dispatch when it came to the mass incarceration of Black people, but what about when they break the law? Massachusetts law is clear and unequivocal:
"Within 150 feet of a polling place…no person shall solicit votes for or against, or otherwise promote or oppose, any person or political party or position on a ballot question, to be voted on at the current election. No campaign material intended to influence the vote of a voter in the ongoing election, including campaign literature, buttons, signs, and ballot stickers, may be posted, exhibited, circulated, or distributed in the polling place, in the building where it is located, on the building walls, on the premises where the building stands, or within 150 feet of an entrance door to the building. ( 950 CMR 53.03(18); 54.04.22),)"
But in spite of that law - THE PEOPLE'S LAW - Bill Clinton felt so entitled, and thought the people were so stupid, that we couldn't recognize that he constituted a walking 'Bill'-board for Hillary Clinton INSIDE the polling area. He also retarded the vote by creating a distraction OUTSIDE the building. His very presence slowed down the vote, his presidential entourage prevented people from getting into the polls, and he extended the time that voters had to wait in line - time that many voters didn't have. Didn't Bill Clinton have since enough to know that his very presence would disrupt the voting process? If he didn't, he has very poor judgment, If he did, what was his motive? He wasn't voting, so why did he have to enter the polling site in the first place? Why did he even have to come there?
The answer is clear - to cheat, to circumvent the law, and to do whatever he had to do to get what he wanted, and he and Hillary needs to be prosecuted for it - and not only that, Hillary needs to be denied the Democratic nomination. Haven't we had enough to these dishonest slicksters in office? Aren't these exactly the kind of people we're trying to get OUT of office? Can you even imagine Barack Obama doing something like that? Could you imagine Bernie Sanders doing something like that? Absolutely not! And that's exactly why this nation can't be trusted in the hands of people like the Clintons. They lack character, they feel entitled, and they think that their interests - and the interests of their rich Wall St. cronies - should be given priority over the interest of the average American.
The DailyKos reported, ". . . the most serious charge leveled at Clinton’s March 1st Super-Tuesday antics is that he was blocking poor people from voting, in one of Massachusetts most distressed communities, where the median family income is $49,000, [which is] $110,000 less than the Massachusetts town where presidential candidate Hillary Clinton went to college, Wellesley. Although electioneering within a polling place is a misdemeanor, interfering with voting rights is a state and federal civil rights violation and felony."

Conduct that Constitutes Federal Election Fraud

The following activity provides a basis for federal prosecution for election fraud:
• Conspiring to prevent voters from participating in elections in which a federal candidate is on the ballot, or when done “under color of law” in any election, federal or nonfederal (18 U.S.C. §§ 241, 242). . . The Criminal Division continues to believe that Section 241 should be considered when addressing schemes to thwart voting in federal elections. Section 241 does not require that the conspiracy be successful, United States v. Bradberry, 517 F.2d 498 (7th Cir. 1975), nor need there be proof of an overt act.  Williams v. United States, 179 F.2d 644, 649 (5th Cir. 1950), aff’d on other grounds, 341 U.S. 70 (1951); Morado, 454 F.2d 167.  Section 241 reaches conduct affecting the integrity of the federal election process as a whole, and does not 39 require fraudulent action with respect to any particular voter.  United States v. Nathan, 238 F.2d 401 (7th Cir. 1956).


The use of Section 241 in election fraud cases generally falls into two types of situations:  “public schemes” and “private schemes.” A public scheme is one that involves the necessary participation of a public official acting under the color of law [like secret service agents].  In election fraud cases, this public official is usually an election officer using his office to dilute valid ballots with invalid ballots or to otherwise corrupt an honest vote tally in derogation of the Equal Protection and Due Process Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment. See, e.g., United States v. Haynes, 977 F.2d 583 (6th Cir. 1992) (table) (available at 1992 WL 296782); United States v. Townsley, 843 F.2d 1070 (8th Cir. 1988); United States v. Howard, 774 F.2d 838 (7th Cir. 1985); United States v. Olinger, 759 F.2d 1293 (7th Cir. 1985); United States v. Stollings, 501 F.2d 954 (4th Cir. 1974); United States v. Anderson, 481 F.2d 685 (4th Cir. 1973), aff’d on other grounds, 417 U.S. 211 (1974).  Another case involving a public scheme turned on the necessary participation of a notary public who falsely notarized forged voter signatures on absentee ballot materials in an Indian tribal election.  United States v. Wadena, 152 F.3d 831 (8th Cir. 1998).
A private scheme is a pattern of conduct that does not involve the necessary participation of a public official acting under color of law, but that can be shown to have adversely affected the ability of qualified voters to vote in elections in which federal candidates were on the ballot.  Examples of private schemes include:  (1) voting fraudulent ballots in mixed elections, and (2) thwarting get-out-the-vote or ride-to-the-polls activities of political factions or parties through such methods as jamming telephone lines or vandalizing motor vehicles.
Public schemes may be prosecuted under Section 241 regardless of the nature of the election, i.e., elections with or without a federal candidate.  On the other hand, private schemes can be prosecuted under Section 241 only when the objective of the conspiracy was to corrupt a specific federal contest, or when the scheme can be shown to have affected, directly or indirectly, the vote count for a federal candidate, e.g., when fraudulent ballots were cast for an entire party ticket that included a federal office.

Eric L. Wattree
Citizens Against Reckless Middle-Class Abuse (CARMA)

Religious bigotry: It's not that I hate everyone who doesn't look, think, and act like me - it's just that God does.

Sphere: Related Content