In terms of the future of the Democratic Party, NPR
writes “A recent Quinnipiac poll found that Sanders bests Clinton among 18- to 44-year-olds, 78 percent to 21 percent.” Because of this energy and enthusiasm, Bernie Sanders has
raised more money than Clinton in February.
When Jann S. Wenner of
Rolling Stone endorsed Hillary Clinton, Mr. Wenner
wrote “Clinton is far more likely to win the general election than Sanders.” First, this statement is undermined by the fact
Real Clear Politics shows Bernie Sanders defeating Donald Trump by
17.5 points in an average of national polls. In contrast, the “far more likely to win” Hillary Clinton beats Trump by
11.2 points, and this margin was less than 4 points several months ago, before Trump’s violent rallies.
Bernie Sanders hasn’t only
“destroyed“ Donald Trump by a wider margin since last December, he’s performed better against Trump in national polls since last October. I wrote a
piece on October 21, 2015 titled
Bernie Sanders Defeats Trump By a Wider Margin Than Clinton in a General Election. From last October until today, Bernie Sanders has consistently outperformed Clinton in matchups against Donald Trump.
Also, nothing in the
Rolling Stone piece endorsing Clinton mentions the ongoing FBI investigation.
The Christian Science Monitor clearly states the nature of the FBI’s investigation, stating “The FBI is indeed conducting a criminal investigation into the possible mishandling of classified information on the private email server Clinton used for State Department communications.”
Yes, Hillary supporters, “The FBI is indeed conducting a criminal investigation.”
Like
The Christian Science Monitor,
The Washington Post has clearly stated the nature of the FBI’s investigation and in early March wrote that “The Justice Department has granted immunity to a former State Department staffer, who worked on Hillary Clinton’s private email server, as part of a criminal investigation into the possible mishandling of classified information, according to a senior law enforcement official.”
You’ve read the words correctly, and the FBI investigation is a “criminal investigation.”
Say it
again, “criminal investigation.”
Even the best defense of Clinton’s email fiasco, a piece by Ruth Marcus titled
Why Hillary Clinton is unlikely to be indicted over her private email server,
states “Lucky for her, political idiocy is not criminal.”
This too, makes for an interesting campaign slogan.
However, “political idiocy” is indeed criminal, when there’s intent and motive involved in the idiotic behavior. The example given my
Duke Law Journal regarding intent and motive states “As far as the criminal law is concerned, Donny intended and attempted to kill a human being; his motive for doing so is simply not relevant.”
Hillary Clinton might have been motivated by
convenience, but she intended to circumvent government networks, and this intentional act resulted in
22 “Top Secret” emails on a private server.
Furthermore, everyone knows that convenience wasn’t the only reason Clinton had the private server. In addition, the FBI isn’t spending over one year investigating with
100 agents to give Hillary Clinton a parking ticket.
I explain in this
YouTube segment why Hillary Clinton will likely face FBI indictments. I also state in a recent
CNN International appearance with John Vause that Clinton indeed faces the possibility of indictment from the FBI investigation.
In addition to the political momentum favoring Bernie Sanders, Vermont’s Senator doesn’t have to worry about a cover-up. Like Watergate, Hillary Clinton’s political future rests upon the actions of others. A recent Reuters
article describes the precarious state of Clinton’s campaign in a piece titled
Role of tech who set up Clinton’s server unknown to bosses at State:
Wisecarver and Swart, who had worked in the department for decades, were soon swapping emails expressing confusion and surprise that a political appointee, a so-called Schedule C employee who is more commonly hired to work in the secretary of state’s offices, should be joining the IT department’s ranks...
The department told Reuters that Pagliano and Kennedy had little contact, and that Kennedy was unaware of the server or his subordinate’s role in running it. Nor did Wisecarver, Pagliano’s day-to-day boss, or Swart know, according to the former colleague, who said the IT office should have been informed.
Like Watergate, it’s the cover-up that dooms politicians, not necessarily the original act linked to unethical behavior.
Bryan Pagliano is just one of many people involved with the FBI’s investigation. Future indictments are likely, considering the scope of the FBI’s investigation and the bewilderment of top intelligence officials. With recent wins, and future wins on the horizon, political momentum is clearly on the side of Vermont’s Senator. It’s not pragmatic or realistic to champion Clinton, knowing that Bernie Sanders defeats Trump by a wider margin, without an FBI investigation, and with the highest favorability ratings of any candidate in 2016. I explain in another interview on
CNN International with John Vause that voters should choose Bernie Sanders, if indeed they fear Donald Trump.
Remember, Trump can’t ask Bernie Sanders for his Goldman Sachs speech transcripts during a televised debate. Clinton’s campaign can’t even stand being pointed at, so just imagine Trump explaining why he
donated to Clinton’s Senate campaigns during a debate. Bernie is by far the superior candidate, and already matches up better against GOP rivals; without the myriad of issues faced by Clinton. For the country, and especially the Democratic Party, Hillary Clinton should concede the nomination to Bernie Sanders.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/h-a-goodman/its-time-for-hillary-clin_b_9555422.html
