HILLARY CLINTON SHOULD WITHDRAW FROM CONSIDERATION DURING THE DEMOCRATIC CONVENTION FOR THE SAKE OF AMERICA - IF SHE REFUSES, THE PEOPLE SHOULD FORCE HER OUT
.
Corruption Is Catching Up to the Clintons and Their Associates
Hillary Clinton is a walking assault to good government, justice, and democracy. EVERYTHING in which Hillary has ever been intimately involve in her ENTIRE career has been drenched in controversy, scandal, incompetence, and has turned out to be an absolute disaster. The only reason her supporters claim that she's suppose to have so much "experience" is because she's been around so long and she has name recognition. But what has she ever done that's been successful? Let me tell you - absolutely nothing. After she lost to President Obama in 2008 he tried to throw her a bone by making her Secretary of State to try to reunify the party, and look at the result. This woman is a monument to corruption, self-service, and incompetence. As I write there's an unprecedented revolt going on in the State Department: Revolt by Security Personnel May Define Hillary as the Weak Candidate.
.
She's the only Secretary of State in the history of this nation who didn't have enough common sense to understand the concept of national security. Instead of ensuring the security of the nation, she insured her own security - the security to wheel and deal with foreign governments on behalf of the Clinton Foundation with impunity. She was also the only Secretary of State in the history of this nation who placed her own interests above the interest of America, and if the establishment hasn't been completely taken over by the oligarchs, she'll be indicted for it.
.
In the interest of the public's right to know, I am a Bernie Sanders supporter, but not a Bernie Sanders cultist, so this is not about sour grapes. This is about ridding America's tree of poison fruit.
.
Corruption Conviction of Clinton Crony Foreshadows Hillary Legal Struggles
.
BILL CLINTON ENGAGED IN
ELECTION FRAUD IN MASSACHUSETTS
Hillary Clinton superdelegate and longtime Democratic Congressman Chaka Fattah was convicted of 22 counts of corruption charges. After serving 11 terms in Congress, Fattah is now out on bail after an indictment was filed in July 2015 against him and four associates. Despite the conviction, Fattah is set to serve the remainder of his term in Congress until January 2017. He faces sentencing in October, and could potentially serve the rest of his life in prison.
.
Fattah formally endorsed Hillary Clinton for president in February, shortly before losing his primary bid for re-election in April. He has been a Clinton loyalist for decades, standing by the Clintons amid the Monica Lewinsky scandal in the 1990s, and even helping Bill Clinton coordinate DNC fundraising trips to Philadelphia shortly after he admitted to perjury. “He can be a public servant without being perfect,” Fattah told Philly.com in 1998.
.
Fattah isn’t the first Clinton superdelegate to be convicted under corruption charges. Former New York State Assembly Speaker Sheldon Silver, who was convicted of corruption in November 2015, had close ties to Hillary Clinton while she served as senator of New York. In 2008, Clinton called Silver, who played an important role in convincing Clinton to run for Senate in New York after Bill Clinton’s presidency ended, “a stalwart voice on behalf of the needs of New Yorkers.”
.
Silver formally resigned from serving as a superdelegate in March 2016, and Congressman Fattah should do the same. Both Fattah and Silver still maintain their innocence, a tactic perfected by Hillary Clinton over the years—to constantly deny wrongdoing despite the overwhelming evidence suggesting otherwise.
.
A number of Clinton’s close associates have been exposed for corruption. Several weeks ago, it was revealed that Clinton’s 2008 campaign manager, Virginia Gov. Terry McAuliffe, is currently under federal investigation over questionable contributions to his 2013 campaign for governor—including $120,000 from a wealthy Chinese businessman McAuliffe introduced to Hillary Clinton at a fundraiser in her home. Clinton’s 2008 campaign co-chair, Debbie Wasserman Schultz, has also been informally removed from her position as DNC chair, and faces losing her seat in Congress to primary challenger Tim Canova after the backlash that erupted over Wasserman Schultz’s overt favoritism for Clinton throughout the 2016 Democratic primaries.
.
Hillary Clinton herself will be subject to some form of indictment or conviction in the near future, regardless of whether she manages to become president. The State Department inspector general reported in May 2016 that Clinton never had authorization to use a private email server during her service as secretary of state, debunking the defense she and her supporters have been using for over a year to dismiss the issue.
.
The Clinton Foundation has also been linked to several cases of fraudulent activity. Clinton appointed Rajiv Fernando, a prominent Clinton Foundation donor, to an intelligence advisory board with the State Department despite the fact that Fernando had no experience or background qualifying him for the role. An IBTimes investigation in 2015 uncovered millions of dollars in donations given to the Clinton Foundation by foreign government dictatorships in exchange for favors from Clinton’s State Department.
.
Whistleblower Charles Ortel, who exposed General Electric’s financial discrepancies in 2008, has alleged the charity did not follow legal compliances when it was created, and that donations were collected and used for purposes differing from what donors were told. Ortel is currently pushing the Federal Trade Commission to open a formal investigation into the charity. Clinton Cash, a book by Peter Schweitzer, corroborated many of Ortel’s claims, laying out how the Clinton Foundation provided donor access to Clinton’s State Department.
.
The Democratic National Committee has completely disregarded the democratic process by colluding with the Clinton campaign to simultaneously raise funds for itself while helping Hillary Clinton secure the presidential nomination. The Party should be pushing to reform campaign finance law—not embracing policies that allow wealthy individuals and corporations to buy off elections. While a few members of Congress push to get big money out of politics—most notably Bernie Sanders—the Democratic leadership has only strengthened its ties to wealthy and corporate donors who have hijacked the party for their own interests over the progressive agenda held by voters identifying as Democrats. http://observer.com/2016/05/corruption-is-catching-up-to-the-clintons-an...
.
Hillary Clinton’s 2008 campaign chair, Virginia Governor Terry McAuliffe, is currently under investigation by the FBI and Department of Justice over questionable contributions to his 2013 campaign. According to a recent CNN report, the investigation—which has been going on for at least a year—calls into question Mr. McAuliffe’s service as a board member to the Clinton Global Initiative, a subsidiary of the Clinton Foundation. A $120,000 donation from a Chinese businessman, Wang Wenliang, made through U.S.-based businesses, raised red flags with investigators—along with several other donations, like the $2 million he gave the Clinton Foundation.
.
Governor McAuliffe is just one of several close associates to the Clintons currently under investigation for corruption. Ms. Clinton’s 2008 campaign co-chair, DNC chair Debbie Wasserman Schultz, is under immense pressure to resign thanks to her favoritism for Ms. Clinton throughout the Democratic primaries. Ms. Wasserman Schultz essentially tipped the scale against Senator Bernie Sanders, a violation of the impartiality her position at the DNC demands. Prominent Clinton supporter and New York City Mayor Bill de Blasio is also under review as part of an ongoing federal investigation into two businessmen with close ties to the mayor. The Podesta Group, implicated in the release of the Panama Papers, was founded by Tony Podesta and Hillary Clinton’s campaign chief, John Podesta. Several other prominent donors to the Clinton Foundation have also been linked to the Panama Papers, and the Clinton Foundation itself has been frequently cited as a source of money laundering and exchanging political favors for large donations.
.
It comes as no surprise that Hillary Clinton’s closest associates are involved in a litany of ethics violations as corruption has been the modus operandi of Ms. Clinton’s campaign for the entire duration of the primaries. Hillary Clinton has publicly vocalized support for campaign finance reform, yet owes much of her success in the primaries to the current corrupt system, which enables her to fundraise unethically, bending and possibly breaking current campaign finance laws. The Hillary Victory Fund, a joint fundraising committee between the Clinton campaign and the DNC, was recently revealed by Politico to be laundering money to the Clinton campaign to circumvent campaign finance laws. Mr. Sanders’ campaign has also highlighted additional
violations and ethical breaches made by the Hillary Victory Fund. http://observer.com/2016/05/corruption-is-catching-up-to-the-clintons-an...
.
FBI formally confirms its investigation of Hillary Clinton’s email server
.
In a letter disclosed Monday in a federal court filing, the FBI confirms one of the world’s worst-kept secrets: It is looking into Hillary Clinton’s use of a private email server.
.
Why say this at all, since it was widely known to be true? Because in August in response to a judge’s direction, the State Department asked the FBI for information about what it was up to. Sorry, the FBI said at the time, we can neither confirm nor deny the existence of any investigation.
.
Now, in a letter dated February 2 and filed in court Monday, the FBI’s general counsel, James Baker, notes that in public statements and congressional testimony, the FBI “has acknowledged generally that it is working on matters related to former Secretary Clinton’s use of a private email server.”
.
Baker says the FBI has not, however, “publicly acknowledged the specific focus, scope or potential targets of any such proceedings.”
.
He ends the one-paragraph letter by saying that the FBI cannot say more “without adversely affecting on-going law enforcement efforts.”
.
The letter was filed in one of the Freedom of Information Act cases brought against the State Department over access to documents from Hillary Clinton’s time as secretary of state. This one was filed by Judicial Watch. http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/fbi-formally-confirms-its-investigation-hilla...
.
What we know about the FBI’s investigation into Hillary Clinton’s emails
.
Over the past couple of days, some Hillary Clinton critics have complained over the way her campaign has described the FBI’s probe into her private email server. Clinton and her campaign have called the probe a "security inquiry" regarding information stored on the server, as opposed to a criminal probe.
.
"I say what I have said now for many, many months: It's a security inquiry," she said on CBS May 8.
.
But on May 11, reporters met with FBI Director James Comey, and he said he is not familiar with the term "security inquiry." Instead, he said, "we're conducting an investigation. That's what we do." http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2016/may/12/fbis-investi...
.
The FBI is reportedly expanding its investigation of Hillary Clinton's private email server
The FBI is widening its investigation of Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton's use of a private email account while she was U.S. secretary of state to determine whether any public corruption laws were violated, Fox News reported on Monday.
.
The Federal Bureau of Investigation has been looking into whether classified material was mishandled during Clinton's tenure at the State Department from 2009-2013.
.
It will expand its probe by examining possible overlap of the Clinton Foundation charity with State Department business, Fox reported, citing three unidentified intelligence officials.
.
"The [FBI] agents are investigating the possible intersection of Clinton Foundation donations, the dispensation of State Department contracts and whether regular processes were followed," Fox quoted one of its unidentified sources as saying.
.
The FBI and the State Department had no immediate comment on the report. The Clinton campaign didn't immediately respond to a request for comment from Business Insider.
.
Republican National Committee Chairman Reince Priebus issued a statement calling the Fox News report "a very troubling development."
.
The FBI last expanded its probe into the server in November to examine whether "materially false statements" were ever provided to agents throughout the course of the case. http://www.businessinsider.com/fbi-hillary-clinton-email-investigation-2...
\
. Donald Trump talked politics with Bill Clinton weeks before launching 2016 bid
Whom does the country have to blame for Donald Trump’s ascendancy in American politics? The Republican Party, for cultivating conservative populism to score short-term victories against Barack Obama? The media, for covering Trump’s every utterance at the expense of all other candidates? Celebrity culture, for thrusting him into the public consciousness? Capitalism, for making him rich? Tall buildings, of which Trump has many?
.
Wrong, says The Washington Post, which revealed the supposed truth on Wednesday: it was former president and candidate spouse Bill Clinton all along. .
According to several Trump sources (and one Clinton source) who spoke to the Post, the two men spoke over the phone in late May, shortly before Trump announced his run in June. During the call, the Trump sources said, Clinton “encouraged Trump’s efforts to play a larger role in the Republican Party” and “analyzed Trump’s prospects and his desire to rouse the G.O.P. base.” http://www.vanityfair.com/news/2015/08/bill-clinton-called-donald-trump-before-presidential-run-2016.
.
“People with knowledge of the call in both camps said it was one of many that Clinton and Trump have had over the years, whether about golf or donations to the Clinton Foundation. But the call in May was considered especially sensitive, coming soon after Hillary Rodham Clinton had declared her own presidential run the month before.
.
“At the time, Trump was touting a “foolproof” but undisclosed plan to defeat Islamic State terrorists and ramping up his presence on the airwaves, including interviews where he was asked about his donations to the Clinton Foundation. He entered the race June 16. https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/bill-clinton-called-donald-trump...
.
A NO-LOSE ELECTION FOR THE 1%ERS . . . UNLESS HILLARY IS INDICTED.
THIS MATERIAL IS A PART OF THE PUBLIC RECORD. RESEARCH IT.
*
A CITIZENRY OF SHEEP BEGETS A GOVERNMENT OF WOLVES - Edward R. Murrow
Why should you care about Hillary Clinton's email scandal enough to read detailed timelines about them? This essay is a good starting point: IS CLINTON'S EMAIL SCANDAL FOR REAL Also check out a two-hour interview of Paul Thompson by Mike Malloy and other news coverage of this timeline effort on the In The News page. Plus, we now have a page that contains just the Latest Timeline Entries. Also see a new forum to discuss the timeline. (Credit Left: Saul Loeb / Agence France Presse / Getty Images) (Center: Mandel Ngan / Agence France Presse) (Right: Kevin Lamarque / The Associated Press).
.
This is a complicated scandal, and there's no way it can be boiled down to a few thousand words. I first created the long timeline, which is now 80,000 words. But, realizing that's too long for many people, I created a 45,000 word medium version and a 25,000 word version. I think the short version is too short and I hope you'll at least try the medium version. Also, please don't miss The Clinton Foundation timeline, which is 15,000 words long and is almost entirely different content than any version of the main timeline.
.
This is an on-going project that will continually add and update all the timelines as new information is reported or discovered. The Main Timeline - Short Version Part 1 - 1993 to April 2013; Part 2 - April 2013 to today. The Main Timeline - Medium Version Part 1 - 1993 to March 2011; Part 2 - April 2011 to September 2014; Part 3 - September 2014 to September 2015; Part 4 - September 2015 to today. The Main Timeline - Long Version Part 1 - 1993 to July 2009; Part 2 - July 2009 to May 2012; Part 3 - May 2012 to February 2015; Part 4 - March 2015 to July 2015; Part 5 - July 2015 to October 2015; Part 6 - October 2015 to February 2016; Part 7 - March 2016 to April 2016; Part 8 - May 2016 to today. The Clinton Foundation Timeline Part 1 - 1993 to December 2009; Part 2 - January 2010 to today.
.
WHY I MADE THIS WEBSITE
.
I'm a political liberal, and up until a few months ago, I would have gladly supported Hillary Clinton. I didn't pay much attention to Clinton's email scandal, and what I heard about it made me suspect that it was another Republican-led scandal that never amounted to much. However, I eventually heard enough concerning news stories about it to make me want to take a closer look. The more I learned, the more shocked and convinced I became that this was a very real and very serious scandal.
.
During the last Bush administration, I was concerned about Islamist terrorism and especially the US government's poor response to it, so I wrote a book called The Terror Timeline, published by Harper Collins in 2004. That book was a timeline covering 25 years of terrorist acts based on thousands of news stories from the mainstream media. I decided the Clinton email scandal could best be understood through a timeline as well.
.
This is a complicated story. Is Clinton guilty of anything that could send her to prison? Most legal cases rely on large amounts of evidence. Imagine you're on a jury trying to decide if Clinton is guilty of anything in this case - you'd need to look at a lot of evidence as well. So I've read thousands of news stories, picked the most important ones, and boiled them down to their most important points so that the reader doesn't have to spend thousands of hours to understand all this.
.
I'm trying my hardest to be objective and summarize the news in neutral language without any personal spin. I've set this website up as a wiki so that other people can join the effort and make corrections and additions to aspects I've missed. I also have links to the source articles so you the reader can check that everything in the timeline is accurate and dig deeper if you want to. I've also tried hard to avoid using blatantly right-wing sources, to make clear this isn't just right wing spin.
.
That said, my aim is to document what Clinton did wrong, not what she did right. This website is attempting to make the case that the email scandal is a real scandal where real crimes were committed. I believe the facts are so strong that simply laying them out in an organized manner makes the case without any spin or extra commentary. I don't have a legal background and you may not either, so this is not about making a legal case on specific charges, but instead making a general case that serious wrongdoing occurred.
.
Since different people have different levels of free time and interest, I've created short, medium, and long versions of the main timeline. But I'll warn you that even the short version is fairly long - about 20,000 words. I recommend you read at least the medium length version, because it's a complicated case and the more you learn, the more compelling the evidence is. Furthermore, there's a separate timeline just on the conflict of interest about The Clinton Foundation. I highly recommend you read that too. The content there is disturbing in and of itself, but it also helps explain why Clinton would have been motivated to keep all her emails totally private in the first place.
.
THE POLITICAL LOGIC OF THIS WEBSITE
.
I'm a political liberal and a registered Democratic voter. So I'm sure I'm going to get criticism from other Democrats for criticizing Hillary Clinton when she is leading the race for the 2016 presidential nomination. Furthermore, as a liberal, I'm very concerned about Donald Trump becoming president. That said, I believe facts are facts, and if the facts point to someone being guilty of serious crimes, we can't simply bury our heads in the sand because that person has certain political beliefs or popularity.
.
During the last Bush administration, I made timelines about terrorism that were very critical of the Republicans then in power, but they were also sometimes critical of the previous Clinton administration, as well as prior administrations, Democratic and Republican. (My timelines then went back to the 1970s). I believe we have to follow the truth wherever it goes, regardless of political party. Criminal behavior is criminal behavior, period, and nobody should be exempt from criticism or punishment because of political power or belief. In fact, those at the top should be held to an even higher standard, because the idea of democracy is that we should be led by the best and the brightest.
.
That said, I certainly don't want this timeline to help elect Trump. Clinton has her email scandal, but Trump have their big problems too. And the polls show it: Trump AND Clinton have the highest dislike numbers of any major presidential candidates since favorability numbers began to be polled in the 1970s. It's bizarre that the two most disliked politicians of the last forty years at least are the ones winning the primaries so far. If you're a Democrat like I am, and you've come to believe as I do that Clinton committed serious crimes in her email scandal, then this presidential election could be a disaster.
.
Luckily, there still are other options. It is unprecedented to have a major presidential candidate with an FBI indictment recommendation hanging over her head in the middle of election season. The Democratic National Convention isn't until the end of July 2016, and a lot could happen between now and then. It's been reported that the FBI investigation is winding down and they want to make their decision whether or not to recommend the indictment of Clinton and/or her aides by the middle of May. That could be delayed two months and still happen before the convention.
.
So between now and late July, Democrats are going to have to decide whether Clinton's scandal is serious enough to disqualify her to be the next president. If the evidence and the resulting political mood are strong enough, then either Clinton will have no choice but to drop out or the super delegates will switch their support to Bernie Sanders or someone else.
.
Consider John Edwards and his presidential run in 2008. During Democratic primary season, it came out that he'd impregnated another woman while his wife was sick with cancer. The story became public early in the primary season, and Edwards wasn't the front-runner. Still, it would have been crazy to simply pretend that scandal didn't exist and vote for him anyway. That's what many were saying for several weeks, because the scandal first came out in the National Enquirer and people didn't know what to believe. I think we're at a similar stage now, because the facts about the email scandal exist and can't be denied, but most people don't know them yet, and more revelations are bound to come out.
.
This website is to help voters, especially Democratic voters, look at the raw evidence and decide for themselves if Clinton's email scandal is "for real" or not. If it is, and enough people realize that, there's plenty of time for the Democratic party to nominate someone else. Personally, I support Bernie Sanders, but if Clinton were to drop out, her delegates could nominate Joe Biden or someone else. It is not written in stone that Clinton has to win the nomination.
.
If, despite the scandal, the Democratic convention goes ahead and nominates Clinton, then I may have to reassess what I want to do with this timeline in what I would consider a terrible, no-win situation. Besides, the Republican Party has vast resources far beyond what a few private citizens can do in their spare time (the Republican National Committee already has a fancy website about the email scandal), and they'll be pushing this scandal hard regardless, probably even if Clinton isn't the nominee. I'm trying to get the facts known before the general election, while it still would be far easier for the Democrats to switch to someone else.
.
In any case, the facts are the facts and Clinton's winning politically won't simply make them go away. This is likely to be a political issue for years to come as more evidence keeps coming out and more investigations, lawsuits, and legal processes keep moving forward. Any voter on the right or the left needs to understand this scandal in order to make an informed decision on whom to support and by how much.
.
APPEAL FOR HELP
.
I have done vast majority of the work on this timeline so far, but I hope it will become more of a collaborative project going forward. That's why I've made this website a wiki that uses the same software as Wikipedia. If you're interested in joining in to add or edit content, please contact me at the email address mentioned at the top of this page. I would especially appreciate people with the expertise to help analyze the legal ramifications, and also people who can help spread the word about the contents of these timelines to educate the general public. Any genuine help is appreciated, including help from people with different points of view interested in getting to the truth, but I also will attempt to weed out disruptors and saboteurs.
I want to thank you so much for this brilliant, objective, and meticulously researched document. You should, and very well may, receive a Pulitzer Prize for it (to be perfectly frank, I'm sorta jealous).
.
I'm spending the weekend going over it with a fine tooth comb, and taking notes. This information needs to be digested, compiled and disseminated in a way that the people can easily understand it with little effort, because the public doesn't really get what all of this is about. They think that Hillary was simply reckless and made a mistake with a few emails, but that's not it at all. Hillary is a criminal, and she's definitely going to be indicted - and if the people begin to recognize that this is a democracy and not an oligarchy, she just may go to prison.
.
The problem that we have in this country is there are some things so horrific and unbelievable that the people just can't wrap their heads around it. They have that "It could never happen here" mentality. And it's that exact mentality that the social manipulators are using to cut our throats. This stuff is scary.
.
Many people assume that I'm just some wild-eyed Bernie Sanders cultist upset over Bernie not winning the primary, but that's not it at all - I'm just desperate to see to it that a person with Hillary’s flawed character NEVER becomes President of the United States. She's just as much of a threat to this country as Donald Trump. Trump is just a dumb bigot; Hillary is not only malevolent, but calculating, and she has a very dark side to her nature.
.
People paid very little attention to the following piece that I wrote that is linked below, and it frustrated the hell out of me. Why are people ignoring this stuff!!!? Cluelessness has become one of the biggest threats to our freedom.
A document leaked by a hacker who took responsibility for the Democratic National Committee data breach appears to show the DNC coordinating with Hillary Clinton from the start of the presidential campaign — just as Bernie Sanders has claimed.
.
ELECTION FRAUD
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
On March 1st, “Super Tuesday” in the Massachusetts Democratic primary election, William Jefferson Clinton, hereafter referred to as Bill Clinton, did disenfranchise a large group of voters by diluting their votes through illegal campaign activity in and near polling stations. This disenfranchisement was deliberate, carefully crafted, and effective. As a result of the illegal activity, a critical battleground state at a critical juncture in the primary season may have gone to Hillary Clinton rather than to Bernie Sanders. Bill Clinton’s illegal activity throughout the day was neither trivial nor inconsequential. It significantly diluted the votes of people who in good faith voted for Bernie Sanders.
STATEMENT OF FACTS
6. On March 1st, 2016, in violation of the law, President Bill Clinton did enter within 150 feet of numerous polling stations in the Massachusetts cities of Boston and Newton, in numerous and extended high-impact visibility stops for the campaign of Hillary Clinton, Democratic presidential candidate for president of the United States. Photographic evidence of Clinton inside polling stations during voting hours appeared in local newspapers and on the Internet in real time.
7. Once inside polling stations, with no other business there, photographic and video evidence show Bill Clinton smiling, shaking hands, greeting people, having photographs taken with people, and otherwise generating goodwill for the candidacy of his wife Hillary Clinton.
8. At one point during the day, video shows Clinton apologizing to an audience that he was so hoarse from campaigning that he had lost his voice.
9. Campaigning within 150 feet of a polling station is illegal in the state of Massachusetts, following laws governing electioneering near polling stations which are well-known and in effect in all 50 states of the United States.
10. In Newton and West Roxbury, Bill Clinton entered not only within the 150 foot perimeter outside the polling stations, but actually walked inside the polling stations and proceeded to meet and shake hands with election workers and other people.
11. The Massachusetts primary election on that day was a critical turning point in the race between Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders for the Democratic presidential nomination.
12. As the voting day progressed, the two candidates were reported to be “neck and neck” by the media, with Sanders at one point pulling ahead. Sanders had closed in on Clinton quickly in recent prior polls, and overtook her in a February 17th poll by 7 points.
13. A February 28, 2016 Suffolk University poll showed a full 8% of likely Democratic primary voters to be undecided just two days before the primary, for a total of roughly 100,000 votes.
14. Bill Clinton also made campaign stops in other cities and towns, clearly saying, in one city through a bullhorn, “I especially want to thank those of you who came out to support Hillary.” Video of this is available. Throughout the day, Bill Clinton was in campaign mode for his wife, as his motorcade, security detail, and large entourage occasionally reportedly blocked people from voting at the times they had set aside to do so, due to his large security presence and security requirements.
15. By the end of the day Hillary Clinton had eked out a narrow victory by 1.4%, which represented about 16,800 votes.
14. The narrow victory in this closely watched race, deemed “critical” for each candidate, bolstered the Clinton candidacy in future primaries, making this a live and active issue to the present day.
This was a flagrant abuse of democracy. This alone should disqualify Hillary Clinton from being president. The president is suppose to PROTECT the Constitution, not drag it through the mud.
[PLAINTIFFS TO BE NAMED] Civil Case No.
DRAFT
Plaintiffs v.
PRESIDENT WIILLIAM JEFFERSON CLINTON,
WILLIAM J. GALVIN, SECRETARY OF THE
COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS
Defendants
COMPLAINT
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
1. On March 1st, “Super Tuesday” in the Massachusetts Democratic primary election, William Jefferson Clinton, hereafter referred to as Bill Clinton, did disenfranchise a large group of voters by diluting their votes through illegal campaign activity in and near polling stations. This disenfranchisement was deliberate, carefully crafted, and effective. As a result of the illegal activity, a critical battleground state at a critical juncture in the primary season may have gone to Hillary Clinton rather than to Bernie Sanders. Bill Clinton’s illegal activity throughout the day was neither trivial nor inconsequential. It significantly diluted the votes of people who in good faith voted for Bernie Sanders.
THE PARTIES
2. William Jefferson Clinton, hereafter referred to as Bill Clinton, is a former president of the United States.
3. William J. Galvin is Secretary of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, the duly sworn officer overseeing the Elections Division of the state of Massachusetts.
4. [Plaintiffs to be named]
JURISDICTION AND VENUE
5. This Court has jurisdiction over this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 because Defendants, acting under color of Massachusetts state law, are subjecting Plaintiffs, and/or causing Plaintiffs to be subjected, to the deprivation of their rights under the Constitution of the United States and the constitution and laws of the State of Massachusetts to cast a meaningful vote.
STATEMENT OF FACTS
6. On March 1st, 2016, in violation of the law, President Bill Clinton did enter within 150 feet of numerous polling stations in the Massachusetts cities of Boston and Newton, in numerous and extended high-impact visibility stops for the campaign of Hillary Clinton, Democratic presidential candidate for president of the United States. Photographic evidence of Clinton inside polling stations during voting hours appeared in local newspapers and on the Internet in real time.
7. Once inside polling stations, with no other business there, photographic and video evidence show Bill Clinton smiling, shaking hands, greeting people, having photographs taken with people, and otherwise generating goodwill for the candidacy of his wife Hillary Clinton.
8. At one point during the day, video shows Clinton apologizing to an audience that he was so hoarse from campaigning that he had lost his voice.
9. Campaigning within 150 feet of a polling station is illegal in the state of Massachusetts, following laws governing electioneering near polling stations which are well-known and in effect in all 50 states of the United States.
10. In Newton and West Roxbury, Bill Clinton entered not only within the 150 foot perimeter outside the polling stations, but actually walked inside the polling stations and proceeded to meet and shake hands with election workers and other people.
11. The Massachusetts primary election on that day was a critical turning point in the race between Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders for the Democratic presidential nomination.
12. As the voting day progressed, the two candidates were reported to be “neck and neck” by the media, with Sanders at one point pulling ahead. Sanders had closed in on Clinton quickly in recent prior polls, and overtook her in a February 17th poll by 7 points.
13. A February 28, 2016 Suffolk University poll showed a full 8% of likely Democratic primary voters to be undecided just two days before the primary, for a total of roughly 100,000 votes.
14. Bill Clinton also made campaign stops in other cities and towns, clearly saying, in one city through a bullhorn, “I especially want to thank those of you who came out to support Hillary.” Video of this is available. Throughout the day, Bill Clinton was in campaign mode for his wife, as his motorcade, security detail, and large entourage occasionally reportedly blocked people from voting at the times they had set aside to do so, due to his large security presence and security requirements.
15. By the end of the day Hillary Clinton had eked out a narrow victory by 1.4%, which represented about 16,800 votes.
14. The narrow victory in this closely watched race, deemed “critical” for each candidate, bolstered the Clinton candidacy in future primaries, making this a live and active issue to the present day.
CLAIMS: VOTE DILUTION
16. Defendants’ actions in engaging or allowing individuals to engage in illegal campaign activity violates Plaintiffs’ right to due process and equal protection of the laws under the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution because said actions allow Plaintiffs’ lawful votes to be diluted.
17. U.S.C. § 1983 provides that any person acting under color of state law who deprives a citizen of the United States of any federal right, privilege, or immunity “shall be liable to the party injured in an action at law, suit in equity, or other proper proceeding for redress ….”
18. Defendant Secretary Galvin, in his official capacity, is such a person.
19. 950 CMR 53.03(18); 54.04.22 of the Massachusetts General Laws states that "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."
20. Given the large number of “undecided” voters and the extremely narrow margin of victory for Hillary Clinton, there was sufficient fluidity in the race for Bill Clinton’s illegal electioneering to have made a significant impact, and to have reversed the verdict of the voters by handing victory to Clinton rather than to Sanders. With 100,00 undecided voters and a margin of victory of only 16,800 votes, it is eminently plausible that Bill Clinton impacted the final result.
21. Bill Clinton's illegal actions were carefully and deliberately calibrated to impact the electoral battlefield in such a way that the entire course of future primaries was affected.
22. Defendant Secretary Galvin issued a statement during the controversy which surrounded Clinton’s activity inside polling places, which declared that Clinton’s entering the polling places alone was not illegal, as long he did not utter words such as “vote for Hillary.” This notion is beyond absurd. The former president did not land at ground zero of a key battleground state and enter the polls because there was no place else to get a cup of coffee. Bill Clinton does not need
a button or a sign (which it is illegal to wear or display inside a polling place.) In his very person, the presidential candidate’s fabulously famous husband amounts to a walking, talking sign for Hillary.
23. Bill Clinton's illegal actions served to demoralize Sanders workers, who now became convinced that no matter how hard they worked, a person of Bill Clinton's stature, with trappings of his former office and with the tacit cooperation of MA election officials, could always reverse that work, and prevent them from reaping the fruit of any labor performed for their candidate. This further dilutes votes for Sanders by causing possible future voters for him to cease participating in the political process in disgust.
24. Bill Clinton's illegal behavior on Super Tuesday is a blow to democracy itself, in that a democratic system's legitimacy is anchored in a people's faith in its basic integrity, despite flaws. Clinton's behavior was arrogant, highly visible, and demoralizing to any believer in the rule of law, and impacts negatively on the willingness of citizens to participate in the political process, a vital steam valve for society. One of our truly great presidents, John F. Kennedy, once said: "Those who make peaceful revolution impossible, make violent revolution inevitable."
PRAYER FOR RELIEF WHEREFORE,
Plaintiffs respectfully pray that the Court:
1. In 1920, the U.S. Supreme Court adopted the "fruit of the poisonous tree" doctrine in the case of Silverthorne Lumber Co. v. United States, which required that evidence which was illegally obtained by police against a suspect must be thrown out. In the present case, it is delegates which constitute the “fruit of the poisonous tree,” and the claim of victory which was meaningful to the Clinton campaign. To merely reapportion a small number of delegates would do nothing to discourage similar future violations of electioneering laws, because in some cases, a small risk for getting caught might be worth it. Therefore plaintiffs request the court to invalidate the Massachusetts primary results for such open and egregious lawbreaking and to award all Massachusetts pledged delegates to Bernie Sanders.
2. Declare that Defendants have violated the Massachusetts Election Code and the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution by engaging in or allowing illegal electioneering activity intended to swing the vote in a significant way.
3. Declare that Defendants have violated 42 U.S.C. § 1983 by virtue of said acts;
4. Preliminarily and permanently enjoin Defendants, their agents, their successors in office, and all persons acting in concert with them from engaging or allowing similar future activity;
5. Award Plaintiffs reasonable costs and attorneys’ fees pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1988; and
6. Award such other relief as the Court deems just and proper.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED
.
Eric L. Wattree
http://wattree.blogspot.com/ Ewattree@Gmail.com
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.
THE CLINTONS SHOULD BE INDICTED AND PROSECUTED
FOR FEDERAL ELECTION FRAUD
.
"JEEVES, FETCH ME A SENATOR . . . ANY ONE OF 'EM WILL DO."
A Princeton University study has found that the United States is no longer a democracy - it is now an oligarchy, run by the rich. BBC.com 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."
.
WHAT KIND OF ARROGANCE AND SENSE OF
ENTITLEMENT DOES IT TAKE TO DO SOMETHING
LIKE THIS!!!?
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).
PUBLIC AND PRIVATE SCHEMES
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.
There are many in the mainstream media who don’t take writers and journalists outside the mainstream, and corporately controlled, media seriously. In fact, they consider us presumptuous to even have the audacity to offer a considered opinion. A few years back, Chris Matthews made the remark on his show, Hardball, that "I don't consider them [progressive bloggers] Democrats. I consider them Netroots. And if I see they vote in every election, or most elections, then I'll be worried. But I'm not sure they're regular, grown-up Democrats. I think a lot of these people are troublemakers who love to sit in the back seat and complain. They're not interested in governing this country. They never ran for office, they're not interested in working for someone in public office. They get their giggles out of sitting in the back seat and bitching."
.
In response, Markos Moulitsas, founder and spiritual leader of the very popular website, Daily Kos, set that loudmouth gasbag straight, very effectively, and in no uncertain terms. He pointed out the following:
.
"In 2003, when Bush landed his plane in the aircraft carrier, and spoke in front of the banner that said, 'Mission Accomplished,' Chris Matthews had an entire show based on that event, and he said everybody knows that we won the war, except a few critics. Well, I was one of those few critics. People like me in the Netroots were some of those critics. And it turns out that we were right and the Beltway conventional wisdom was wrong. And once again, we're in a situation where people like Chris Matthews don't learn from these mistakes. They're trapped in this bubble and they think that they know better."
.
And he handled Tom Tancredo several weeks earlier with the very same finesse. He literally ran Tancredo off the Ed Show, and again, without busting so much as a sweat bubble. The reason he doesn't have to raise his voice, is because he's confronting Washington hypocrisy with facts and courage - something that the mainstream media seems to have lost. The mainstream media has degenerated into cheerleaders with an unspoken agreement not to step outside the approved parameters of the status quo. Then Moulitsas is that guy who shows up at the dinner party with a crude but unyielding truth: "No, that's not a bad egg - somebody farted." That's who bloggers are, and that's exactly what America needs.
.
When I started writing over two decades ago, a serious journalist could pick and choose what publications he or she wanted to contribute to, but many of those resources have dried up as the corporate media has consumed and sucked all of the air out of the free press in order to dumb down America and propagate their conservative, self-serving, and narrow point of view. That’s why you’ll find some of the oldest and most prestigious publications in America begging for donations over the internet just to stay afloat.
.
So serious, objective, and conscientious bloggers represent the new face of the American press. We’re what mainstream reporters and columnists USED to be - remember those old-school reporters of the 30's and 40's in the rumpled suits, a crumpled hat, and a pencil behind their ear? Those are who serious bloggers are today. Those bigshots who sit on plush sets in flawlessly tailored suits, and who never ask the hard questions or follow up, they're not journalists, they're corporate hacks.
.
So we’ve got to learn to listen to one another, do our own research for the facts, and most important of all, learn to think for ourselves. We've got to redefine journalism in this country. So seek out those bloggers that you find to be trustworthy and credible, and then support their blogs. That way, YOU choose who you want to place your trust in, not some executive directed by Wall Street.
.
If we fail to do those things we’re lost, because there’s a new paradigm at work in this country today that many of us haven’t caught on to yet. We’re used to a situation where it’s Blacks against Whites, Jews against Gentiles, gays against straights, and so on. But in today’s world there’s only two factions, at least to the ruling class - the 1%ers against the working class. And as I write this, only five (5) corporations control 90% of all of the information that we consume, so we’re being drenched in corporate propaganda. They’re telling us what is acceptable, what’s not acceptable, who to like, and who not to like - and they have absolutely no compunction against sending your children off to die in order to fatten their bank accounts. They’ve already done it in Iraq. So we should keep these facts in mind - especially Black people when they sit their children in front of the sillyvision to be mesmerized. The mass media is teaching Black children that it is their role in life to be criminals, drug addicts, and at the very bottom of society.
WOULD BUSH'S SABER RATTLE AS LOUDLY AGAINST CHINA?
On September 15, 2002 - six months and four days prior to the Iraqi invasion - I published an article entitled "Would Bush's Saber Rattle as Loudly Against China?" in the Portland Independent Media Center (no one else would publish it at the time) that said the following:
.
Now that we've reached the anniversary of 9-11, I am consumed by one thought - in light of what I've seen over the past year I find myself much more afraid of Bush, Cheney, and Ashcroft than I am the Al Qaeda. While I understand that terrorists strike without warning to destroy life and property to promote their own agenda, it has become increasingly clear that Bush and his cohorts threaten to be even more destructive by attacking life, liberty, and the very foundation of this nation in the promotion of theirs.
.
Over the past year these conservative war mongers have been playing the American people like a fiddle. Now they want to sacrifice American lives for nothing more than their own political advantage. Just ask yourself, what does Saddam Hussain have to do with 9-11? Absolutely nothing. Evidence of that can be found in the fact that if Saddam had been involved in 9-11 the administration would have gone after him initially. So why is it suddenly so imperative that we invade Iraq now? I'll tell you why. Since Bush was unable to produce the head of Osama Bin Laden, he now needs another villain to take Bin Laden's place in order to keep his numbers up in the polls - and if that means having to sacrifice a few American lives and ignite even more terrorist activity on American soil in the process, so be it.
.
It is a well known political fact that the American people tend to rally around the president when the country's at war. That's why the Bush Administration fell all over themselves after 9-11 to declare "a war against terrorism." And the American people reacted just as planed - Bush's numbers immediately went up in the polls. But now with the mystery surrounding the fate of Osama Bin Laden, the administration has found itself without a war to sustain those numbers, so now they have to create one.
.
While I'm not prepared to say that the Bush Administration allowed 9-11 to take place, it is clear that the timing of the 9-11 tragedy was without a doubt the best thing that could ever happened to Bush's presidency. Bush was a lame duck the minute he was sworn in. It seems that as soon as Bush entered The Oval Office the stock market began to falter and the economy started to weaken. And whenever he spoke, the next day's news was not so much what he said, but whether or not he got through the speech without falling on his face. In addition, his big tax cut that was touted as the key to boosting the economy turned out to be a bust, and he was so inept in dealing with congress that a Republican senator changed parties costing Bush control of the senate. As a result, when 9-11 took place, it was embraced by conservatives more like it was a football rally than the sober occasion that it was - thus, all the flag waving, ceremonies, and strutting about.
.
But where was all that bluster prior to 9-11? ABC News reported on May 16th of this year that the Bush Administration acknowledged that U.S. Intelligence officials informed President Bush weeks before 9-11 that Osama Bin Laden's terrorists might try to hijack a plane. It was also reported that Bush privately alerted transportation officials and security agencies, but other than that, he simply sat on the information. The administration claims that the information they received was non-specific, but one would think that even if they couldn't determine exactly when and where the attack was going to take place, at the very least they could have warned the American people. If they had, maybe some of the people who died would have chosen not to fly - or possibly, chosen to leave their children behind. But no, this president who now claims to be so concerned with protecting our welfare that he feels compelled to launch an unprovoked attack against Iraq, was at that time more interested in the impact that warning us would have on the airline industry.
.
What the American people needs to understand is that the power elite in this country doesn't view the United States in the same way as its citizens. They see the United States as a huge corporation, with its various industries as its subsidiaries. They see American citizens, particularly the lower and middle class, as simply pawns to be cajoled and manipulated in whatever way is necessary to meet the goals of the corporation. Therefore, they didn't view the tragedy of 9-11 in the same patriotic way as the average American citizen. After the initial shock, they saw 9-11 in terms of dollars and cents. Ultimately, it was viewed as an assault on their corporate superstructure. Later they recognized that the incident could be used as a distraction for the American people, and still later, an opportunity to move on Middle Eastern oil interests.
.
So let there be no doubt, all of the flag waving, ceremonies, and patriotic speeches have nothing to do with 9-11; they are designed to whip the American people into such a frenzy that they're blinded to Bush's actual agenda. And that agenda includes the following.
.
1).Committing America (and American lives) to a war in order to get himself reelected.
2).Taking control of Iraqi oil fields to benefit his friends in big business.
3).Keeping the American voter distracted from considering the ramifications of the recent corporate scandals.
4).Keeping the American people from recognizing how inept he is as president.
.
The rest of the world sees Bush's agenda for what it is, and the American people would too if they'd stop waving their flags long enough to consider the flag's true meaning. The American flag represents freedom and justice, not trying to dictate who should lead other countries. It represents the open debate of issues, not intolerance to any and everyone who disagrees with your point of view. It represents the guarantee of personal freedom, not the suspension of the Bill of Rights. If the American people would just stop to consider these facts, it would become clear that even while Bush and his conservative cohorts are frantically waving our flag, they are simultaneously waging war against the very values that the flag and this great country represents.
.
These issues can, and will, be debated ad nauseam, but the American people need only ask themselves two questions to put all of the administration's nonsense into perspective. First, would the administration be so anxious to go to war if we were talking about China as opposed to Iraq? And secondly, do we think that invading Iraq will make us more, or less safe from terrorist attacks? If we answer those questions honestly, it becomes clear that the administration is being disingenuous at best.
***
Could Obama Fall Victim to a Change We Can't Believe in?
At this point Obama's presidency could go either way - he can either become one of the greatest presidents this country has ever known, or go down as an exciting experiment that went bad. It's all up to how he handles the expectations of Independents.
The biggest problem that Obama currently faces is becoming a victim of his own effectiveness. During the campaign he raised the nation's expectation so high that just being a good president won't do. He promised a change that we can believe in, which led many of us to believe that he intended to trash the way business is done in Washington, but that promise seems to be totally inconsistent with what seems to be his irrepressible desire to hold hands and sing Kumbaya with the very Republican leaders from which we wanted a change.
This has fueled the growing suspicion by many that both parties are beholding to the same cabal of power, and only feign having differing philosophies toward governance. That suspicion lies very close to the surface for many Independents - after all, that's why they're Independents in the first place.
And President Obama hasn't helped himself in that regard. For a man who is ordinarily so politically astute, even before he became president he did a curious flip-flop on the FISA issue. According to Greenchange.org,on October 24, 2007, Bill Burton of the Obama campaign indicated, "To be clear: Barack will support a filibuster of any bill that includes retroactive immunity for telecommunications companies." But by June 20, 2008, Obama issued a statement reversing his position, indicating that our national security needs were more important than his objections.
That deeply disappointed many Independents, since a citizen's right to sue a telecommunications company for invading his or her privacy in violation of the law has nothing to do with national security. Those are the very constitutional rights that we're trying to keep secure. But while many Independents have kept that in mind, at least Obama had the integrity to take that stand prior to our making the decision on whether or not to vote for him.
But then once he was elected President, Obama made another curious statement with regard to the criminal activities and alleged war crimes committed by the Bush administration. In spite of the fact that there are strong allegations and prima facie evidence of torture, and some of the most unconscionable violations of the Geneva Convention since the Nuremberg trials, President Obama stated that he wanted to move the nation forward, and not look back.
Many Independents have two problems with that. First of all, President Obama seems much too willing to move forward with regard to the fat cats, while lower-ranking personnel are rotting in prison. That's in direct conflict with the American ideal of equal justice under the law. And secondly, since most of these atrocities were committed against the citizens of other nations, it is the height of arrogance for us to be "the deciders" of whether or not those responsible should be held accountable. That also runs contrary to American ideals, and the concept of "a shining city on the hill."
And now we're talking about sending thousands of more troops to Afghanistan. The question is, why? The nation has yet to be provided with a reasonable explanation of why we should be meddling, once again, in another country's internal affairs. One would think we would have learned something about the futility of that by now. It's a recipe for disaster.
There's only two legitimate reasons to have our troops in that part of the world. The first is obvious - to make damn sure the nuclear missiles in Pakistan don't fall into the hands of Al Qaeda. The second reason is to bring Osama Bin Laden to justice. So why can't we simply pull out of Afghanistan and deploy enough troops in Pakistan to protect the missiles, then let the CIA and law enforcement deal with Osama? That way we save both treasure and lives, and we're not creating more enemies for the United States by killing innocent people.
But many Independents suspect that there's another agenda afoot. Actually, Cheney's giving it away. Independents recognize that Dick Cheney has absolutely no integrity, so when he gets passionate over an issue we know to follow either the money or power. Thus, many Independents suspect that what's actually behind Cheney's insistence that we go recklessly rushing into Afghanistan has much more to do with Halliburton's bottom line than it does America's best interest. And while Obama has shown himself to be an excellent president in many ways, his one shortcoming - and a shortcoming that may very well bring him down in the end - is his tendency to try to appease the stupidity and greed of the GOP.
The President needs to recognize that there is nothing he can do that's going to make him acceptable to the GOP - that is, unless he agrees to appoint a Republican vice president, then resign. By now it should be clear that even while he's asleep, the GOP is trying to hatch plans to destroy him. So by spending more time thinking about them than he is his base, he's playing right into their hands.
I mentioned power as one of the reasons that Cheney's trying to rush the president into Afghanistan. I wonder if the president has considered the fact that Cheney just might be trying to get him to make the same kind of mistake in Afghanistan that the Bush Administration made in Iraq in order to take the Iraq issue off the table for the 2012 election? If during the 2012 campaign America is bogged down in Afghanistan with the useless death of thousands of U.S. troops, all of a sudden, Bush, Cheney, and the GOP won't look all that bad. The president should think about that possibility, since the machinations of Dick Cheney makes Machiavelli look like a trainee.
On the other hand, if the president would have the CIA go after Osama Bin Laden (through the use of intelligence, instead of blindly shooting at rocks), then pull out of Afghanistan, and make an agreement with the government of Pakistan to help them protect their nuclear arsenal, he'll be looking pretty good in 2012, and he won't have the deaths of thousands of U.S. troops to have to justify.
And he'd look even better if he allowed Attorney General Holder to do his job with respect to the Bush administration's war crimes. First, he'd firm up his base by restoring their confidence that he stands for the rule of law, and he would also allay the fear that he might be a puppet, controlled by some powerful cabal.
Another upside to that is that once Holder begins his investigation into the Bush administration, there's absolutely no doubt that he's going to find criminality, cronyism, and corruption seeping so deep within the GOP that Republicans will be so busy snitching on one another, and covering their own asses, that they won't have the time to plot against either him, or the American people.
Now, THAT, would be a change that we could believe in.
. George W. Bush and Dick Cheney squandered over $3 trillion of taxpayer funds "chasing" Osama Bin Laden. President Obama brought him down with 2 helicopters and 2 detachments of Navy Seals. If Bush had done that he'd be on Mt. Rushmore today, but the mainstream media all but ignored what Obama had accomplished. .
***
An Open Response to Halliburton's Demand That I make A retraction
Ms. Gabriel,
I’m writing in response to your June 23rd request for an immediate correction to a statement made regarding the Halliburton Corp. in my June 20th article, Healthcare: Why Can't We Get the Congressional Option? Your communication reads as follows:
FOR YOUR IMMEDIATE ATTENTION
The article, “Healthcare: Why Can't We Get the Congressional Option?” posted Saturday, June 20, on The Wattree Chronicle contains information about Halliburton that is completely misleading and incorrect.
Halliburton is not a military contractor. Halliburton is one of the world’s largest providers of products and services to the energy industry, and serves the upstream oil and gas industry throughout the lifecycle of the reservoir – from locating hydrocarbons and managing geological data, to drilling and formation evaluation, well construction and completion, and optimizing production through the life of the field.
You will note that all of the government services and engineering and construction businesses have been and remain with KBR. To confirm, KBR and Halliburton are completely separate and independent of each other. Halliburton separated KBR from the company in April 2007 (http://www.halliburton.com/public/news/pubsdata/press_release/2007/corpnws_040507a.html.
We respectfully request you make this correction immediately.
Kind regards,
Diana Gabriel
Senior Manager, Public Relations
Halliburton diana.gabriel@halliburton.com Office: 713.759.2608
Cell: [Redacted]
Fax: [Redacted]
While I am always careful to obtain multiple sources for any assertions that I make in my articles, nevertheless, I went back to objectively revisit the facts just in case it was necessary to accommodate your request. Halliburton is only mentioned one time in the entire article, and the paragraph reads as follows:
“And there's a very logical reason for that. Business, by it's very nature, is designed to generate profit, not to provide services - there was ample evidence of that during the Bush administration. Prior to the military turning over many of its support services to Halliburton, for example, we never heard about our troops being given contaminated water or being electrocuted in the shower. The reason for that is our military's top priority was maintaining the troops, while Halliburton's top priority is maximizing its profits. The very same dynamic is at work when it comes to insuring our citizens - and the politicians know it, but they don't care, because again, for them, it's about me first, and only then, the public good. I mean, am I the only one sick of these people dictating what is on and off the table? I don't think so.”
Try as I might, Ms. Gabriel, I can’t find anything inaccurate about that statement. While you pointed out that “Halliburton separated KBR from the company in April 2007," testimony before the Senate Democratic Policy Committee indicates that KBR was providing our military with substandard services long before then - and then, being rewarded for it.
On May 20, 2009 Sen. Byron Dorgan (D-N.D.), chairman of the Senate Democratic Policy Committee, opened the hearings on “Rewarding Failure: Contractor Bonuses for Faulty Work in Iraq,” with the following statement, which reads in part:
“Today’s hearing is a result of this Committee’s continuing investigation into the deaths of over a dozen U.S. soldiers by electrocution in Iraq. That investigation has led us to internal Pentagon documents showing that in 2007 and 2008, contractor KBR received bonuses of $83.4 million for work that, according to the Pentagon’s own investigation, led to the electrocution
deaths of U.S. troops.”
That doesn’t mean that the work was performed in 2007 and 2008 - that’s when they received the bonuses.
The committee’s third witness was Mr. Charles Smith. Mr Smith was the former Chief of HQ, Army Field Support Command, Field Support Contracting Division. According to Sen. Dorgan’s opening statement, “In that capacity, he [Mr. Smith] managed the massive LOGCAP contract that the Pentagon awarded to KBR, until he was forced out of his job in 2004 when he refused to approve paying KBR more than $1billion in questionable charges." He went on to say, "I should note that Mr. Smith was removed from his job despite the fact that in November 2004 Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld awarded him the Department of Defense’s Medal for Distinguished Civilian Service.”
Mr. Smith’s testimony includes the following:
“In August 2004, the Army’s approach to KBR underwent a complete change. The goal of award fee boards became one of making KBR financially sound, even if it was not performing in accordance with the contract. This was consistent with actions to rescind the 15% withhold definitize contract cost estimates well above the DCAA recommended amounts, and remove me from my position. The Army’s stated reason is that it was afraid KBR would cease performance or allow their subcontractors to cease performance. I did not think this was a credible threat, as KBR would have lost its military business entirely by this action. I do not believe the Army has
stated the real reason for its change in approach to KBR.”
So frankly, Ms. Gabriel, I don’t see where I was inaccurate at all. In fact, Halliburton’s position seems to be completely analogous to a man who gets his hand shot off while committing a robbery, then pleads not guilty on the grounds that he’s no longer associated with the hand that held the gun.
Thus, with all due respect, I think I’ll let the article stand as is. I don’t see where it is the least bit misleading. In fact, upon review, I don’t think I went far enough - but I fully intend to remedy that situation in the very near future.
ADDENDUM
So what I'd like to know is this - if a shade tree journalist sitting up in his den in the heart of a Los Angeles ghetto could see what was going on in these instances, why couldn't the New York Times, the Los Angeles Times, the Washington Post, CNN and all of the other media networks; why couldn't Harvard, Yale, and all of the various and sundry Ph.D.s from America's great institutions of learning; and why couldn't the nation's so called "think tanks," all of the nation's political scientists, and the United States Congress figure it out?
. The answer is, they had, but they simply turned their backs and allowed young patriotic Americans to march off to their deaths, because that was more profitable. The most irrefutable evidence of that? None of their children died.
.
Now, the Mainstream Media - and the New Democratic Party, of all things - is doing the EXACT same thing to this nation, and on behalf of the EXACT same people (the 1%ers) by turning their backs once again on the law, democracy, and common sense:
.
The Clintons acted with great enthusiasm 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 feels so entitled and thinks the people are so stupid, that we can't recognize that he constitutes a walking 'Bill'-board for Hillary Clinton. He also retards the vote by creating a distraction, his presidential entourage prevents people from getting into the polls, and it extends the time that voters have to wait in line - time that many voters don't have. Didn't Bill Clinton know this,? 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? The answer is clear - to cheat, to circumvent the law, and to do whatever he had to do to get what he wanted. 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."
.
.
Americans are currently living under the illusion of democracy. In a REAL democracy, Bill and Hillary wouldn't be celebrating a victory in the primaries, and in a REAL democracy, the people wouldn't be cheering them on and the Mainstream Media would be as silent as a church mouse. In a REAL democracy both Bill, and Hillary, would be out on bail and facing felony charges. So at the rate we're sliding downhill, this nation - at least as we've known it - can't possibly last. .
God help us.
Strive To Become Your Own Hero... Then Let No One Remove Your Cape.
BIO
Eric L. Wattree is a writer, poet, and musician, born in Los Angeles. He’s been a columnist for The Los Angeles Sentinel, Black Star News, The Atlanta Post, and is a member of the Sigma Delta Chi Society of Professional Journalists (http://www.spj.org/). He’s also the author of "A Message From the Hood."
Some of the greatest minds I’ve ever known held court while sitting on empty milk crates in the parking lots of ghetto liquor stores, while some of the weakest minds I’ve ever known roamed the halls of academia in pursuit of credentials over knowledge.
Am I a hater, you ask? You're damn right I'm a hater. I hate injustice. I hate hypocrisy. I also hate demagoguery, apathy, and the stupidity that allows it to exist. Hater? Absolutely. I'm a big time hater. I hate what I see happening to this country, and I hate watching the development of a culture that embraces ignorance with a stupid sense of pride. So yes, I am indeed a hater, but not only that - I'm a hater with a very low threshold for bullshit, so step off.