MC: It is pretty clear that Hillary Clinton violated the law in several ways by setting up her own email server, having highly classified material transferred from United States government servers to her private server, and operating in a non secure environment. You are not allowed to do any of those things under federal law.
There's a not too distant precedent involving the former head of the CIA, John Deutch. Deutch removed CIA computers from his office. These computers contained classified information. The computers were set up in his home. Deutch entered a guilty plea for mishandling government in formation. More recently, General David Petraeus pleaded guilty to "removing and retaining classified information" while serving director of the CIA.
There are several outcomes that could impact the presidential primary process. The investigation could be slow-rolled with no findings prior to the nominating convention. The investigation could be completed promptly with Clinton forced into a misdemeanor plea deal like that offered Petraeus. Finally, it seems to me likely that, in the absence of any action or even intent to act on Clinton's culpability, someone with the investigation will leak information that proves, irrefutably, that Clinton removed and retained classified information against regulations and law.
We will find out sooner or later. Sooner is better. If slamdunk information comes out prior to the convention, either through indictment or leak, then Clinton is finished and Sanders would be the overwhelming choice. If slamdunk information on Clinton's guilt emerges after the convention but before the election, the Democratic leadership and their masters would be able to dismiss Sanders and plug in some establishment flunky who will protect their billions.
If I were betting on the outcome, I would bet on the last option: a release of information that totally compromises Clinton's prospects after she's nominated followed quickly by the insertion of Joe Biden or someone who can deliver without the immediate baggage.
JB: The mainstream media is constantly labelling Sanders as a "fringe candidate." What do you think of that?
MC: Does a fringe candidate get nearly six million donations to his campaign? (Compared to one million for Hillary Clinton.)
Does a fringe candidate draw 14,000 people to a rally in Utah, that hotbed of liberalism?
Sanders nearly won Massachusetts and did better there than Obama did in 2008. Sanders was just a point or two down in Illinois and Missouri, amazing when you think of it. He won Colorado, Minnesota, and Oklahoma. Does a fringe candidate rack up close races and victories like that?
JB: Then, why do they keep calling Sanders a "fringe candidate?"
MC: That's the easiest question in this interview. Sanders is not a bought-and-sold politician. He has a philosophy and worldview that favors the vast majority of people. Therefore, the people who fund the Democrats and Republicans get nervous when they see someone doing well who isn't for sale. The response of the rulers/owners is to put their public relations people (i.e., the mainstream media) to work.
The discrediting and diminishing efforts against Sanders have two goals: 1) make sure he is never nominated and 2) get him to drop out of the race just as soon as possible. The sooner he stops talking to the people, the less impact his efforts will have. The financial elite, aka The Money Party, doesn't like to leave anything to chance.
JB: Anything you'd like to add before we wrap this up?
MC: Joan, it was a pleasure sharing ideas with you. We will hope for the best and keep on working to make that happen.
JB: Thanks so much for talking with me again, Michael. It's been too long. Let's do it again soon.
(Note: You can view every article as one long page if you sign up as an Advocate Member, or higher).
7
5
5
