For what it’s worth, recent events suggest that the next POTUS will likely be
Joe Biden.
On the Democrat side, evidence continues to amass that between the email
scandal, irregularities in the Clinton Foundation and the soon to be released
conclusions of the Benghazi investigation, the POTUS can’t afford to keep
supporting Bill Clinton’s wife. Because, if he does, dissatisfied voters
jeopardize the continuation of his “legacy,” whatever that may be.
As far as Sanders is concerned, he’s now made enough noise to gain some
leverage in the party’s platform, but his chances of being actually being
elected are probably near zero.
In the Republican’s case, although they seem to be on track to coalesce
behind Trump, key figures such as Bill Kristol are intent on preventing
cohesion. Talk of a third party has begun, which would undo the Republicans
altogether. And, in any case, it would absolutely insure the impossibility of a
win.
Along the same lines, a growing number of senior GOP figures, including
former presidents, governors and senators are vowing to skip the upcoming convention in
Cleveland. Among the notables, former Presidents George H.W. Bush and George W.
Bush have said they will not attend. So have John McCain, Mitt Romney and Jeb
Bush. All of which weakens the party further.
In the meanwhile, for whatever reason, the POTUS’s approval rating is slowly
increasing, recently rising above 50%. And whereas an incumbent president has
significant impact on voter’s decision-making, for the reasons stated above, by
bringing Biden in as a last minute party savior, it almost virtually guarantees
an election win for Obama’s current vice president.
As far as the POTUS is concerned, a friend sent this today:
Michael Goodwin @foxnews.com/opinion, delivered another brilliant
synopsis explaining the Trump phenomenon in his article headed: “Donald Trump =
The short-term impact of Obama's eight years in office”
The column begins: “He came, he saw, and he changed the world. Mostly for the
worse. And from there, Mr. Goodwin builds his case, stating: “Each day brings a
new notch on the legacy belt as he appears determined to do things just to prove
he can. History will sort the wheat from the chaff, but the short-term impact of
Obama’s eight years can be summed up in two words: Donald Trump.”
Then, in a few short paragraphs, Mr. Goodwin repeats well known information
concisely in one of the best presentations seen to date, as follows:
“Obama begat Trump. Without Obama’s mixture of breathtaking arrogance and
stunning incompetence, there is no constituency or emotional space for a Trump.
“A year ago, that would have been a preposterous claim. Yet at this
remarkable juncture, with Trump having secured the GOP nomination, it all seems
obvious now. Trump is the inevitable reaction to the blundering Obama colossus.
“But it’s more than Obama’s extreme partisanship and identity politics that
paved the way for Trump. It’s also that Obama solved no serious problems facing
the country, and turned some into full-blown disasters.
“He doubled the national debt, the economy is stuck in neutral, and instead
of cooling race relations, he turned them into a bonfire — the bonfire of
Obama’s vanities.
“Nor is it incidental that the world is on fire. By abdicating America’s
leadership role, Obama created the vacuum that China, Russia and malignant
forces everywhere are rushing to fill. Could anyone possibly do worse?”
And in that brief analysis Mr. Goodwin correctly illustrates how total
incompetence paves the way for any alternative to attract attention, Even one
with no proven substance, required skills or practical experience.
Bringing us to today’s update on Bill Clinton’s wife.
An article posted on Sunday by Dan Metcalfe @lawnewz.com/politics,
has particular merit because it’s written by a lawyer in a publication for
lawyers. The intent is to provide an opinion based on the law, not politics.
In that regard, Mr. Metcalfe recaps the elements of the email situation to
date, including his perception of what has already transpired, and then he
presents the effects of the newly released IG report which contains legalese but
is well worth reading carefully.
“To us, knowing that there are no applicable penalties within the FRA (or in
the FOIA, for that matter, which Ms. Clinton also blatantly circumvented), the
primary significance of the IG report is that it so flatly and persuasively
belies nearly every public “defense” that she has uttered on the matter, from
her extraordinary news conference at the United Nations on March 10 of last year
to even her initial stunned reactions to the IG report itself this past week.
“More to the point, though, you fear that the most likely Democrat nominee,
having just been seriously wounded by this week’s IG report, is manifestly
vulnerable to a much greater wound in the form of a criminal indictment for
misconduct that far transcends what the IG report dealt with. Specifically, as
a sophisticated observer, you are aware that Former Secretary Clinton’s intent
(known in criminal law as mens rea), or lack of same, is not what matters in
this case. Rather, the applicable legal standard is a mere “gross negligence”
one, as specified in the standard national security non-disclosure agreement
that she signed and its underlying criminal statutes.
“And when you marry that to the fact that (among other things) her admitted
failure to use the State Department’s special classified email system for
classified (or potentially classified) information constituted a clear
violation of a criminal prohibition, you start worrying big-time. And this is
especially so given that Ms. Clinton did not just violate such laws
inadvertently or even only occasionally — she did so systemically. In
other words, her very email scheme itself appears to have been a walking
violation of criminal law, one with the mens rea prosecution standard readily
met.
“It also is especially so given that the ongoing investigation of Ms.
Clinton’s misconduct is being conducted by the FBI, under the leadership of FBI
Director James Comey. Those of us who worked under him when he was the deputy
attorney general during the George W. Bush Administration know him to be an
exceptional man of utmost integrity, one who can be counted on to recommend a
criminal prosecution when the facts and the law of a case warrant it, regardless
of political circumstances. Given that the facts and law are so clear in Ms.
Clinton’s case, it is difficult to imagine her not being indicted, unless Jim
Comey’s expected recommendation for that is abruptly overruled at “Main Justice”
(i.e., by Criminal Division Assistant Attorney General Leslie Caldwell, by
Deputy Attorney General Sally Yates, or by Attorney General Loretta Lynch) or at
the White House by President Obama (who customarily does not intervene in such
things and would do so here either secretly or at no small political peril).
“So what you must contemplate, as a leader of the Democratic Party, is the
very real possibility of your likely presidential candidate actually being
indicted, on criminal charges, sometime between now and, say, (a) the time of
the convention at the end of July; (b) the time of the general election in early
November; or (c) Inauguration Day in January. Which possibility would you
prefer?”
So, here we have an attorney’s well thought out conclusion that, as far as
the law itself is concerned, Bill’s wife is undoubtedly subject to possible
indictment unless offered shelter from political cohorts.
Thus, put in those terms, the question becomes whether or not the POTUS feels
that risking his reputation and “legacy” on her behalf is worth the risk. And
while logic suggests that she very certainly isn’t, looking at the irrationality
of most of his other decisions makes any guess as good as any other as to what
he’ll do in her case.
With the probability of the FBI’s seeking indictment quite high at this point,
however, brings up the ongoing question once more: Joe Biden, Mayor Bloomberg,
Jerry Brown, and Starbuck’s chairman and CEO, Howard Schultz, are you guys
reading this?
That’s it for today folks.
Adios
