The Repubs are licking their lips and lying in wait.They're planning to make a very big deal out of both the email scandal and the Clinton Fdn's troubles, but it makes sense for them to wait until the start of the election to do so. My goal is to get the facts about the scandal widely known prior to the Democratic Convention.Then, Dems still have a chance to jump ship from Clinton to Sanders, or even to someone else like Biden

::::::::

The Ticking Clinton Time Bomb: Hidden in Plain Sight - Part 3

Readers and concerned citizens now have a way to see ALL of the material on the topic, rather than read a hint here and a hint there. This timeline offers, for the first time, the ability to see the scandal/s as a whole, and therefore to connect the dots, which makes the whole story all that much more serious, sordid, and oh so much worse.

Welcome back for the conclusion of this three-part series with Paul Thompson about Hillary's emails and The Clinton Foundation. [Read Part One, Hillary's "Damn" Emails? Or "Damning" Emails?and Part Two, Did Clinton Foundation Pimp Out State Department?]

Joan Brunwasser: You've mentioned to me that timing is crucial here. Can you flesh that out a bit for us? What's the rush?

Paul Thompson: Timing is everything in this case, in my opinion. First, the FBI has to decide whether to recommend to indict Clinton and/or her top aides or not. Then, the Justice Department has to decide whether to go ahead with an indictment or not. For me, the key is the FBI's recommendation, because if they were to recommend Clinton's indictment, that would totally change the public perception - there would be no way to maintain that this is just a right-wing smear or an inconsequential "security inquiry," as Clinton keeps calling it. And that could in turn completely transform the presidential election.

JB: How so?

PT: So much depends on the timing. Let's assume for a minute that the FBI does recommend Clinton's indictment. The effect of that could be very different, depending on when it happens. There are still Democratic primaries coming up. In particular, 800 delegates are to be rewarded on June 7th, with almost 500 of them in California. Bernie Sanders actually still has a chance to win a majority of the pledged delegates. If the FBI were to recommend Clinton's indictment prior to June 7th, that bombshell could lead to a Sanders landslide. He would need 70% or so of the vote in those states to win a bare majority of the pledged delegates.

JB: But what if the FBI doesn't act until after that date?

PT: Then, the next big date is the Democratic National Convention, starting on July 25th. If the FBI is silent until after the early June primaries, Clinton is likely to enter the convention with a sizable lead of pledged delegates. But there's the matter of the superdelegates. What would they do? They might switch in big numbers to Sanders if Clinton is seen as fatally wounded due to an FBI recommendation. Or they might not. Nobody knows, because nothing like that has ever happened before. Lately, there's been talk that establishment Democrats think Sanders is too liberal, so if Clinton drops out, most of her delegates could vote for Joe Biden or someone else, denying the nomination to Sanders. There are all sorts of "what if" scenarios.

JB: Granted, but bringing in Biden at the convention would surely turn off the millions of Bernie supporters, and rightfully so. What if the FBI waits until after the convention before making any recommendation? Is that also a possibility?

PT: It is. FBI Director James Comey has repeatedly said that he wants the investigation to be done well and quickly, but if there's a conflict, "well" takes priority over "quickly." He's also said the FBI hasn't set any deadlines to finish, such as the Democratic Convention. That said, news reports indicate the investigation is almost over. For instance, a couple of days ago, The New York Times said the investigation is expected to finish within a month. Basically, all the investigating is done, most or all of Clinton's aides have been interviewed, and the last step is interviewing Clinton herself, which should take place in the next few weeks. If the FBI inexplicably waits a couple more months after that, that could be seen as an effort to throw the general election to Trump, so I think it's very unlikely they'll wait that long. If that was their plan, we wouldn't be hearing the news reports that they're basically done and just waiting to interview Clinton.

JB: How does your rushing to finish your timeline dovetail with all those timing permutations?

PT: My thinking is that the Republicans are licking their lips and lying in wait. They're planning to make a very big deal out of both the email scandal and the Clinton Foundation's troubles, but it makes sense for them to wait until the start of the election to do so. Trump is disliked by a majority of likely voters. In fact, his dislike numbers are the worst of any major presidential candidate since favorability ratings began to be polled, back in the 1970s. Trump's only chance of winning is if he runs against Clinton, who has the second worst dislike numbers of any major presidential candidate ever! Even then, she would probably need to be heavily damaged by these scandals for Trump to have a decent chance to win.

So, my goal is to get the facts about the scandal widely known prior to the Democratic Convention. Then, Democrats still have a chance to jump ship from Clinton to Sanders, or even to someone else like Joe Biden. Personally, I think picking someone who hasn't even been in the primaries like Biden would be a terrible idea, but literally anyone would be miles better than Clinton. There's no Biden Foundation or Sanders Foundation that is a conflict of interest can of worms like the Clinton Foundation. What Clinton has done with that foundation plus her email scandal is unprecedented. If the FBI does recommend her indictment, I think it would be absolutely crazy to continue with her nomination.

JB: Could that happen?

PT: Anything is possible. Clinton might decide that Trump is so widely disliked that she'd have a good shot of winning the general election, even with all her scandal baggage. In that case, it's going to come down to a battle for public opinion. Will enough Democrats realize that this scandal is for real and is deadly serious prior to the Democratic Convention, thus forcing the superdelegates to vote for Sanders or someone else? Clinton has a powerful political machine behind her, and a lot of the mainstream media clearly favor her, as can be seen by how most major newspapers have officially endorsed her. So, there needs to be an effort to get the actual facts out, free of any Clinton spin. That's what I'm trying to do with the timeline.

It would be a tragedy if the facts were largely ignored until after the convention, because I have no doubt the Republicans will then start an all-out push to convince voters that Clinton is unfit for office due mainly to this scandal. If the facts don't get widely known at that time, then the public will be stuck with the choice of Trump vs. Clinton. I would consider that a no-win disaster, based on all I know about the email scandal and the Clinton Foundation, not to mention Trump. That's why timing is key. There still is a chance for the Democrats to nominate someone else.

JB: It could be that the timing will drag enough that all the primaries and even the election are over but the doubts remain. Then, what?

PT: Keep in mind that we live in an age where a big news story can come and go in 24 hours. But the legal system works on an entirely different timescale. Complicated trials, like any trial of Clinton would be, take years to resolve. Based on the facts I've seen about this scandal, I think it's something that's going to dog Hillary for years to come. And that's especially true because the Republicans hate her and Bill so very much. If she wins the presidential election, I'm sure the Republicans will start hearings leading to an impeachment trial literally from Day One. And since they're almost certain to retain control of the House, they can grandstand and run their own investigations as much as they want. Whereas, if she doesn't win, they'll almost certainly go after her just the same, because they hate her that much. And Trump would appoint an attorney general with the express purpose of convicting Clinton. He's already basically said as much.

I hate that political aspect, but that's the reality. There's no scandal involving the Clintons that the Republicans wouldn't try to use for maximum political advantage. That doesn't change whatever the underlying facts of the scandal. People need to come to their own conclusions.

JB: Agreed. According to your timeline, President Obama has weighed in several times to say that the importance of Hillary's emails is being overblown. But doesn't this scandal reflect poorly on Obama as well?

PT: Obama does bear some responsibility here. It's important to remember that one year before Clinton became secretary of state, there was a Republican scandal in which officials including Karl Rove were found to have avoided public scrutiny by keeping emails on a private server. The media outlet Vox has noted, "That [Bush administration email] scandal unfolded well into the final year of Bush's presidency, then overlapped with another email secrecy scandal, over official emails that got improperly logged and then deleted, which itself dragged well into Obama's first year in office. There is simply no way that, when Clinton decided to use her personal email address as secretary of state, she was unaware of the national scandal that Bush officials had created by doing the same... Perhaps even more stunning is that the Obama White House, whose top officials were presumably exchanging frequent emails with Clinton, apparently did not insist she adopt an official email account."

So, the Obama White House definitely dropped the ball by letting Clinton use only a private email address for all her government work, and on a private server too. But that's small potatoes compared to what Clinton actively did. What's more important in my opinion is what Obama does moving forward. Will he let the FBI and the Justice Department do their jobs based only on the evidence, or will he put pressure on them due to political considerations? Based on his public comments on the scandal so far (especially when he never should have commented on an on-going investigation in the first place), I fear it will be the latter. But we'll see.

JB: Indeed. Who's your target audience for the timeline?

PT: Everybody! Seriously, if you consider yourself an informed voter, you need to know the facts about Clinton's email scandal and the Clinton Foundation. As I've said, it's going to be in the news for years to come in almost any future scenario.

JB: Aren't you walking a fine line?

PT: Yes, I am. I hate the idea of Trump being president. I hate finding myself in agreement with Republicans on this when I disagree with them on just about everything else. I definitely don't want my timeline effort to help elect Trump! That said, I think the worst thing the Democrats can do is bury their heads in the sand and pretend this scandal is a big nothing, because that's clearly untrue. This is not Benghazi Part 2; this is for real. The scandal needs to come to a boil BEFORE the Democratic Convention, while there's still time to make a change. Ignoring it until the general election is exactly what the Republicans are hoping Democrats will do.

JB: Let's hear your elevator pitch, Paul: In a nutshell, what does the timeline reveal, politically?

PT: Clinton could be a "dead woman walking." Meaning, her political future could already be doomed, it's just that she and her supporters don't realize it yet. The FBI could recommend her indictment. Nobody can predict the future, but I believe anyone who looks at the facts presented in the timeline has to conclude that is a very real possibility. And even if the FBI doesn't do that, those same facts won't go away, and more damning facts are bound to come out. Look at Chris Christie and his bridge scandal. He was never indicted for that, but I think it's safe to say that was a major reason why he didn't succeed with his presidential campaign. Clinton is far more politically wounded than most people realize, because many facts about the scandal have been reported but aren't widely known yet. The Democratic Party would be taking a massive risk running her against Trump in the general election. I think it's crazy to even consider doing that, based on what I now know, and what is presented in the timeline.

JB: I'm truly disheartened by this litany of ill-conceived behavior on the part of a person in high office, running for even higher office. Is there anything you'd like to add before we wrap this up?

PT: I feel that way too. I feel that if most people knew the facts I've explained to you, they would decide that Hillary Clinton is unqualified to be president. And that's a big problem for me, because I'm a Democrat and I want to see our next president be a Democrat and most definitely not be Donald Trump! The Republican powers-that-be have to be aware of all this evidence against her, and they're likely lying in wait until after the Democratic Convention to use all their right wing media platforms to make sure this sort of information becomes widely known. What I'm trying to do is get this out as soon as possible, so Democrats will see this is a real scandal and a serious problem, and it's time to consider nominating someone else. There's still time to avoid making a tragic mistake that could give us either President Trump or a President Clinton who is so ethically compromised with the Clinton Foundation that that could be its own nightmare as well.

And that's not even considering the blackmail potential. Former heads of the CIA, NSA, DIA, and Defense Department have said that countries like Russia and China almost certainly have all of Clinton's emails, including her redacted and deleted ones. What would stop them from threatening to release some of them, such as the top secret ones, as political leverage?

JB: I shudder at the thought. Hang on a minute; One more question before I let you go. I just saw an articlepurporting that some of Hillary's supporters are suggesting that, if the FBI recommends her indictment, President Obama should preemptively and fully pardon her. What are your thoughts on that?

PT: That is a possibility. But it's one that's fraught with difficulties. For instance, most people don't know this, but in 1915, the US Supreme Court ruledthat accepting a pardon is "an admission of guilt." Furthermore, that would tarnish Obama's legacy and create a scandal in and of itself. Consider what happened to President Ford. When he pardoned Nixon in 1974, his popularity plummeted. Many believe that cost him a close election against Jimmy Carter in 1976. Furthermore, I don't think that would slow down Republican efforts to try to destroy Clinton through this scandal. They could still hold hearings and pursue "fact finding" investigations and so on for years to come - look how long they've been going on about Benghazi. Plus, there are dozens of on-going civil lawsuits that would still continue regardless, since they are about the release of government documents. The idea of a pardon would be to make this scandal go away, but I don't think it would have that effect.

JB: You're probably right; She can run but she cannot hide. In any case, we'll have to wait and see, won't we? Thanks so much for talking with me, Paul. And especially for devoting your time to putting together this comprehensive timeline so that readers can read and decide for themselves about Hillary.

PT: Thank you for giving me this space to get this information to a wider audience.

***

Thanks to Michael Collins for suggesting that I interview Paul Thompson.

Thanks to Meryl Ann Butler, Managing Editor at OpEdNews, for her editing expertise, good titles, great graphics and general, all-around moral support.

*

Part Oneof my interview with Paul: Hillary's "Damn" Emails? Or "Damning" Emails? - Hidden In Plain Sight, Part One

Part Two of my interview with Paul: Did Clinton Foundation Pimp Out State Department? - Hidden in Plain Sight, Part Two

*

Link to YouTube of Paul's interview with Mike Malloy

*

Paul's other book: The Terror Timeline: Year by Year, Day by Day, Minute by Minute: A Comprehensive Chronicle of the Road to 9/11--and America's Response, HarperCollins, 2004

*

The Clinton Email Scandal Timeline:

Here's your chance to educate yourself and come to your own conclusion about this. All three versions plus the Clinton Foundation timeline are included below. Please share widely.

* 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 today
  

* The Clinton Foundation Timeline

• Part 1 - 1993 to December 2009
  

• Part 2 - January 2010 to today
  

Authors Website: http://www.opednews.com/author/author79.html

Authors Bio:

Joan Brunwasser is a co-founder of Citizens for Election Reform (CER) which since 2005 existed for the sole purpose of raising the public awareness of the critical need for election reform. Our goal: to restore fair, accurate, transparent, secure elections where votes are cast in private and counted in public. Because the problems with electronic (computerized) voting systems include a lack of transparency and the ability to accurately check and authenticate the vote cast, these systems can alter election results and therefore are simply antithetical to democratic principles and functioning.



Since the pivotal 2004 Presidential election, Joan has come to see the connection between a broken election system, a dysfunctional, corporate media and a total lack of campaign finance reform. This has led her to enlarge the parameters of her writing to include interviews with whistle-blowers and articulate others who give a view quite different from that presented by the mainstream media. She also turns the spotlight on activists and ordinary folks who are striving to make a difference, to clean up and improve their corner of the world. By focusing on these intrepid individuals, she gives hope and inspiration to those who might otherwise be turned off and alienated. She also interviews people in the arts in all their variations - authors, journalists, filmmakers, actors, playwrights, and artists. Why? The bottom line: without art and inspiration, we lose one of the best parts of ourselves. And we're all in this together. If Joan can keep even one of her fellow citizens going another day, she considers her job well done.


When Joan hit one million page views, OEN Managing Editor, Meryl Ann Butler interviewed her, turning interviewer briefly into interviewee. Read the interview here.

While the news is often quite depressing, Joan nevertheless strives to maintain her mantra: "Grab life now in an exuberant embrace!"


Joan has been Election Integrity Editor for OpEdNews since December, 2005. Her articles also appear at Huffington Post, RepublicMedia.TV and Scoop.co.nz.