Further Evidence Clinton Deleted Business Related Email In Violation Of Federal Laws

Clinton Email Cartoon Deleted

Once it was Democrats who complained about the culture of corruption in the Republican Party. These days far too many Democrats are keeping quiet over signs of corruption by their presumptive presidential nominee. There have been new revelations recently which are consistent with the view that Clinton might have been violating policy to cover up influence peddling as Secretary of State.

There are mechanisms in place to try to reduce the risk of corruption by government officials, which Clinton frequently ignored. In light of this, she has only herself to blame, not the vast right wing conspiracy against her, when her actions are interpreted as signs of corruption. While Clinton has claimed for over a year that she was allowed to exclusively use her private email server, the State Department Inspector General report showed that her actions were unprecedented and in violation of the law. Clinton failed to turn the email over to the State Department to be archived, as required by law, and destroyed about half the email, falsely claiming that they were all personal. She also failed to abide by an agreement she made, due to the conflict of interest when she was appointed Secretary of State, to disclose all donations made to the Clinton Foundation.

The Associated Press has two new reports which raise questions about Clinton. We already knew that her claims were false that all the email she destroyed was personal as email discussing Libya from Sidney Blumenthal were not among the email turned over by Clinton. AP reports on another example of work-related email which was destroyed rather than being turned over:

Former Secretary Hillary Clinton failed to turn over a copy of a key message involving problems caused by her use of a private homebrew email server, the State Department confirmed Thursday. The disclosure makes it unclear what other work-related emails may have been deleted by the presumptive Democratic presidential nominee.

The email was included within messages exchanged Nov. 13, 2010, between Clinton and one of her closest aides, Deputy Chief of Staff Huma Abedin. At the time, emails sent from Clinton’s BlackBerry device and routed through her private clintonemail.com server in the basement of her New York home were being blocked by the State Department’s spam filter. A suggested remedy was for Clinton to obtain a state.gov email account.

“Let’s get separate address or device but I don’t want any risk of the personal being accessible,” Clinton responded to Abedin.

Clinton never used a government account that was set up for her, instead continuing to rely on her private server until leaving office.

The email was not among the tens of thousands of emails Clinton turned over to the agency in response to public records lawsuits seeking copies of her official correspondence. Abedin, who also used a private account on Clinton’s server, provided a copy from her own inbox after the State Department asked her to return any work-related emails. That copy of the email was publicly cited last month in a blistering audit by the State Department’s inspector general that concluded Clinton and her team ignored clear internal guidance that her email setup violated federal standards and could have left sensitive material vulnerable to hackers.

In a separate story, AP reports that meetings with “longtime political donors, Clinton Foundation contributors and corporate and other outside interests” were not recorded on Clinton’s official calendar:

An Associated Press review of the official calendar Hillary Clinton kept as secretary of state identified at least 75 meetings with longtime political donors, Clinton Foundation contributors and corporate and other outside interests that were not recorded or omitted the names of those she met. The fuller details of those meetings were included in files the State Department turned over to AP after it sued the government in federal court.

The missing entries raise new questions about how Clinton and her inner circle handled government records documenting her State Department tenure — in this case, why the official chronology of her four-year term does not closely mirror the other, more detailed records of her daily meetings.

At a time when Clinton’s private email system is under scrutiny by an FBI criminal investigation, the calendar omissions reinforce concerns that she sought to eliminate the “risk of the personal being accessible” — as she wrote in an email exchange that she failed to turn over to the government but was subsequently uncovered in a top aide’s inbox.

The AP found the omissions by comparing the 1,500-page calendar with separate planning schedules supplied to Clinton by aides in advance of each day’s events. The names of at least 114 outsiders who met with Clinton were missing from her calendar, the records show.

No known federal laws were violated and some omissions could be blamed on Clinton’s highly fluid schedule, which sometimes forced late cancellations. But only seven meetings in Clinton’s planning schedules were replaced by substitute events on her official calendar. More than 60 other events listed in Clinton’s planners were omitted entirely in her calendar, tersely noted or described only as “private meetings” — all without naming those who met with her.

While it is not known if this was part of an effort to cover up meetings with donors, there is little doubt that Democrats would be complaining quite loudly if similar behavior was seen in a former Republican cabinet member and presidential candidate. Members of each party must be held to the same standards.

This comes soon after the IT expert who set up the server pleaded the 5th 130 times and failed to answer any questions at a deposition. Plus ABC News had this report earlier in the month:

Newly released State Department emails help reveal how a major Clinton Foundation donor was placed on a sensitive government intelligence advisory board even though he had no obvious experience in the field, a decision that appeared to baffle the department’s professional staff.

The emails further reveal how, after inquiries from ABC News, the Clinton staff sought to “protect the name” of the Secretary, “stall” the ABC News reporter and ultimately accept the resignation of the donor just two days later.

Under normal circumstances, it is hard to see a major political party nominating a candidate with as much baggage as Hillary Clinton.

Voters Still Don’t Like or Trust Trump & Clinton, But See Sanders Favorably

Trumps and Clintons

Despite running what is probably the most inept campaign ever by a major party candidate, Donald Trump remains within five points of Hillary Clinton in the latest CNN/ORC Poll. The fact remains that most people, for good reason, do not like either candidate. As CNN put it, “When asked whether they would be excited by a Trump or Clinton presidency, fewer than 3-in-10 muster that level of enthusiasm for either.” Bernie Sanders is seen favorably by 59 percent, compared with 41 percent for Clinton and 38 percent for Trump.

While Clinton hopes her attacks on Trump’s economic views will change things, a majority believe Trump could handle the economy better than Clinton. Clinton is seen as stronger on foreign policy, but Trump is seen as stronger on terrorism. Neither is seen as honest, but more see Clinton as dishonest than Trump:

The poll finds Clinton widely viewed as having the better temperament for the presidency (56% say so vs. 32% who feel Trump is temperamentally better-suited for the White House), while Trump has picked up some ground over Clinton when voters are asked who is more honest and trustworthy (45% say Trump, 37% Clinton, a near reversal since March). But still, 17% say they see neither candidate as honest and trustworthy.

Trump has problems related to his racism and xenophobia, while 59 percent see Clinton’s violations of policy and dishonesty surrounding her private email server when Secretary of State as a negative indicator of her character and ability to serve as president:

About two-thirds say the way Trump talks about race and ethnicity is an important indicator of his character and ability to serve as president. On Clinton’s handling of her email as secretary of state, about two-thirds now say she did something wrong by using a personal email address and home-based server to handle her communications, up from about half in March of last year when the story first came to light. Likewise, 6-in-10 now say they see her handling of email as an indicator of her character and ability to serve as president, up from about half in March of last year.

As I noted above, Bernie Sanders is seen in the most favorable light, far surpassing Clinton and Trump. The major third party candidates are receiving some support but remain far behind in the poll, with Gary Johnson, now the Libertarian Party official nominee, at nine percent and presumptive Green Party nominee at seven percent.

If Donald Trump can remain within five points of Clinton despite all his recent blunders and the lack of a real campaign structure, his election remains a real possibility should Clinton be hurt by further bad news or legal action. Democrats who are making so much noise about how we must fall in line behind Clinton due to the horrors of a Trump presidency should be pushing for Sanders to be the nominee if they are really sincere in desiring to ensure that Donald Trump doesn’t become president.

Americans Really Dislike The Presumptive Major Party Candidates–2016 Might Be The Time To End The Democrat/Republican Duopoly

CLINTON-FAVORABILITY

TRUMP-FAVORABILITY

The latest ABC News/Washington Post poll confirms what we already knew–Americans are unhappy with the thought of Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton being the major party nominees. Trump is doing the worse, which is no surprise considering that he continued his racist rants after becoming the presumptive Republican nominee, with his statements on policy also remaining incoherent. In a binary political race, we would expect that if one candidate becomes less popular, their opponent would become more popular. Instead, Hillary Clinton’s favorability also continues to decline:

Seven in 10 Americans see Donald Trump unfavorably in a new ABC News/Washington Post poll, up 10 points in just the past month to a new high since he announced his candidacy for president. But Hillary Clinton reached a new high for unfavorability as well, 55 percent.

The results mark the striking challenges facing both candidates, cementing their position as the two most unpopular presumptive major party nominees for president in ABC News/Washington Post polling dating to 1984.

While unlikely, it is not too late for either party to choose a more suitable candidate now that we have seen how badly the primary process has failed. There has been speculation that the Republicans might write convention rules to allow this. With the party leaders opposing Trump, and many of Trump’s delegates not personally in favor of Trump, it is possible that a majority would support rules which eliminate bound delegates and allow all to vote as they choose. Another possibility could be to require a super-majority on the first ballot and leave delegates free to vote as they choose on subsequent ballots. The Republicans face two major problems if they try this–the wrath of those who really do support Trump, and the lack of a clear replacement.

The Democratic Party is less likely to change their nominee unless forced to by outside forces (such as an indictment of Hillary Clinton). After all, Clinton is supported by the party establishment, and party rules are written to promote a conservative Democrat such as Clinton over an insurgent candidate such as Sanders. While they are unlikely to dump Clinton at the convention, there are many strong reasons to do so. As Sophia McClennen has pointed out, Clinton, with both her policies and tactics, is transforming the Democratic Party into another version of the Republicans. Dave Chandler has made an excellent list of  reasons why Hillary Clinton is not fit to be president.

While Clinton now has taken a lead over Trump in the traditional presidential polls, Rasmussen found that more people would rather go out for a beer with Donald Trump than Hillary Clinton. Even ignoring the pro-Republican house effect at Rasmussen, I’m not surprised. Trump probably would be more entertaining to go out drinking with, but there are limits as to how much of him people can take. Near equal numbers of people would have either candidate over for dinner.

Johnson Stein

With the nominees of both parties being so incredibly awful, this might be the year to try to break the monopoly the major political parties have held since Abraham Lincoln was elected president as a third party candidate. With cynicism about the corrupt political system reaching a boiling point, as described by Connor Lynch, more voters might be willing to look at alternatives. Young voters, who are not tied to either political party, are probably the most willing to consider third party candidates. The International Business Times questions whether young Sanders supporters will vote for Clinton, and how many might vote for Jill Stein or Gary Johnson. A few of us older voters are thinking the same way:

Unless you’ve been living under a rock for the past year, you know that young people love Sanders. Here’s exactly how much: During the primary season, more than 70 percent of Democratic voters under 30 supported the Vermont senator, Vox reported earlier this month. Individual states’ numbers are even more impressive. In Illinois, 86 percent of young voters chose him over Clinton, an Illinois native. In Ohio, 81 percent did, according to U.S. News and World Report

For Sanders supporters who have decried Clinton as a warmonger, stooge of Wall Street and corrupt career politician, that means it’s time to either fall in line with most Democrats or look elsewhere…

“What happens is people forget in the fall,” Williamson said. “Democrats vote for the Democrats and Republicans vote for the Republicans.”

But anecdotal evidence suggests that might not prove true for the millennial generation, half of which identifies as independent and thousands of whom are first-time voters who don’t have strong party loyalty. In the YouGov poll, 32 percent of Sanders supporters under 30 said they’d choose a third-party option if the senator didn’t make the ballot…

History has proven that young people’s votes matter: In 2012, for example, at least 80 electoral votes were dependent upon voters under 30, according to Circle data. Without the youth vote, the swing states of Florida, Ohio, Pennsylvania and Virginia, which supported Obama that year, would have gone red. Mitt Romney could have become president.

Clinton very well might still win due to fear of a Trump presidency, and there are huge obstacles for a third party candidate. The record unpopularity of the major party candidates, the growing number of independent voters, and the impact of the internet on both fund raising and growing support, make the chances better than ever before. Having the right candidate is essential, and many Sanders supporters are now  hoping that Sanders will continue his campaign until November, with the goal to try win and not just be a Nader-style spoiler.

Both Clinton and Trump Ignore Civil Liberties In Response To Terrorism

bill of rights

While Donald Trump’s disregard for civil liberties in response to terrorism has been rather obvious, one sad fact about the 2016 election is that Hillary Clinton isn’t much better. Mediaite points out a serious flaw in her views in response to a tweet from Clinton from earlier today: “If the FBI is watching you for suspected terrorist links, you shouldn’t be able to just go buy a gun with no questions asked.”

Clinton’s proposal and others like it have met with criticism from civil libertarians and legal scholars, who argue that you cannot constitutionally deny citizens their rights without proving that they are guilty in a trial. “We generally don’t take away rights based on suspicion” is how UCLA law professor and blogger Eugene Volokh puts it.

Clinton evidently disagrees, likely believing that we as a society ought to be wary of anyone being investigated by the feds, even in the absence of a conviction. At the very least, she seems to think we should ask pointed questions of those the federal government believes put the national security of the United States at risk through their actions.

Of course, Clinton’s comments come after the Orlando shooting Sunday morning, carried out by a perpetrator who was investigated by federal authorities but then removed from watch lists. So even if the federal government stops investigating a suspect, we may have to act on the assumption they broke the law anyway.

Mark Joseph Stern also discussed this at Slate:

America has an appalling, unconscionable, and unparalleled gun violence problem. The federal government has proven able in the past to pass gun safety laws—like rigorous licensing requirements and comprehensive backgrounds checks—that have proven to be quite effective at reducing gun violence. Much, much more can and should be done. For example, the federal government should also promptly repeal the outrageously unjust law that protects gun sellers across the country from legal liability when they negligently sell firearms to unqualified purchasers. And Congress should forbid manufacturers from selling weapons of war—guns that have no plausible purpose other than to slaughter vast numbers of humans in as short a time as possible.

 What Congress, or the next president, should not do, however, is forbid individuals on the FBI’s terrorist watch list from purchasing firearms. The problem here is largely one of precedent: The Supreme Court has said private gun ownership is protected by the Second Amendment of the Constitution. It has also ruled that the right to bear arms is a “fundamental right” under the 14th Amendment as a component of the “liberty” protected by the due process clause. As I explained in December:

The Supreme Court’s ahistorical, atextual reading of the Second and 14th Amendments as guarantors of an individual right to bear arms may be deeply flawed. But limiting any right, no matter how specious, based on undisclosed, mistake-ridden lists is even more unsound. The Constitution is anchored by the promise of due process; so long as gun ownership is considered an aspect of liberty, the government must not revoke it unilaterally, with no opportunity for appeal. Civil libertarians should push to abolish the terror watch lists, not expand their reach.

If the government can revoke your right to access firearms simply because it has decided to place you on a secret, notoriously inaccurate list, it could presumably restrict your other rights in a similar manner. You could be forbidden from advocating for causes you believe in, or associating with like-minded activists; your right against intrusive, unreasonable searches could be suspended. And you would have no recourse: The government could simply declare that, as a name on a covert list, you are owed no due process at all.

This is hardly the only civil liberties problem with regards to Hillary Clinton. During the 2008 campaign Hillary Clinton was the only Democrat who refused to sign a pledge to restore Constitutional liberties. All the Republican candidates, with the exception of Ron Paul, also refused to sign. She introduced legislation to make flag burning in protest a felony while in the Senate, and has used language quite similar to Donald Trump in showing a lack of respect for freedom of speech.

There is a special irony with Clinton equating being under FBI investigation with guilt here, considering that Clinton herself is under FBI investigation on other matters. By this logic, Clinton being under investigation should by itself be sufficient grounds to deny her the Democratic nomination. Of course it is much more reasonable to deny someone the nomination to be president than to deny civil liberties to large numbers of people. There has already been plenty revealed about her actions as Secretary of State which should disqualify her from consideration.

A Lanister Always Pays His Debts–But Not Donald Trump

Game of Thrones 2016 Candidates

When we think of greedy and power hungry families, some of the first to come to mind are the Bushes, the Clintons, and the Lanisters. Donald Trump might not have a family history of seeking political power, but he has now joined these other power-hungry families. At least a Lanister always pays his debts. Donald Trump does not.

USA Today reports:

Donald Trump casts himself as a protector of workers and jobs, but a USA TODAY NETWORK investigation found hundreds of people – carpenters, dishwashers, painters, even his own lawyers – who say he didn’t pay them for their work…

At least 60 lawsuits, along with hundreds of liens, judgments, and other government filings reviewed by the USA TODAY NETWORK, document people who have accused Trump and his businesses of failing to pay them for their work. Among them: a dishwasher in Florida. A glass company in New Jersey. A carpet company. A plumber. Painters. Forty-eight waiters. Dozens of bartenders and other hourly workers at his resorts and clubs, coast to coast. Real estate brokers who sold his properties. And, ironically, several law firms that once represented him in these suits and others.

Trump’s companies have also been cited for 24 violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act since 2005 for failing to pay overtime or minimum wage, according to U.S. Department of Labor data. That includes 21 citations against the defunct Trump Plaza in Atlantic City and three against the also out-of-business Trump Mortgage LLC in New York. Both cases were resolved by the companies agreeing to pay back wages…

The actions in total paint a portrait of Trump’s sprawling organization frequently failing to pay small businesses and individuals, then sometimes tying them up in court and other negotiations for years. In some cases, the Trump teams financially overpower and outlast much smaller opponents, draining their resources. Some just give up the fight, or settle for less; some have ended up in bankruptcy or out of business altogether.

The Wall Street Journal has similar stories.

Plus there is the big con job at Trump University.

Trump Game of Thrones

Hillary Clinton might consider calling him Deadbeat Donald in addition to Dangerous Donald. On the other hand, Ron Fournier has provided justification for Trump’s use of Lyin’ Hillary with some examples in an article entitled Hillary Clinton’s Truth Problem for The Atlantic

There are some Sanders supporters who might be hoping to see Trump win. I hardly see Trump as an acceptable alternative, but when both choices are so awful, I’m not going to dwell on how people plan to vote in November. The important thing is that we stick together to try to keep the country from sliding further into oligarchy, and oppose the extension of the warfare/surveillance state which we will probably see with either presumptive major party candidate. While in some ways Trump is probably worse than Clinton, at least there is the potential benefit if Trump is president that many Democrats will oppose his policies while justifying comparably odorous polices from Clinton. Quick medical fact: People who die in wars started by a Democrat are just as dead as people who die in wars started by a Republican.

FBI Court Filing Shows That Democratic Race Might Not Be Settled

hillary-fbi-2

While the Democratic establishment and even some Sanders supporters  (as Clinton supporters are anxious to report) are saying it is time for him to give up, Sanders has at least two reasons to continue the campaign. The most obvious is to continue to protest how the system has led to someone as unsuited for the presidency as Clinton now being the presumptive nominee. The second is that, despite considerable speculation, nobody really knows what is happening with the FBI investigation and whether Clinton or her top aides will be indicted.

A report from The Hill shows both how little has been released to the public and that this is not something which should be ignored:

The FBI is treating everything on the private server used to run former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s personal email account as evidence or possible evidence as part of the federal investigation connected to the machine, the bureau said in a court filing this week.

“[A]ll of the materials retrieved from any electronic equipment obtained from former Secretary Clinton for the investigation are evidence, potential evidence, or information that has not yet been assessed for evidentiary value,” the FBI said in the filing.

Release of any of that additional information “could reasonably be expected to interfere with the pending investigation,” it added.

The FBI refused to publicly confirm other details of its investigation, and in the Monday evening filing declined to outline what, if any, laws it believes may have been broken to prompt its investigation. It also would not say who the target of the investigation is or confirm reports that multiple senior Clinton aides had been interviewed as part of the probe.

Still, the claim that all material is being treated as current or potential evidence could bode poorly for Clinton, who this week clinched the role of presumptive Democratic presidential nominee.

Regardless of whether Clinton is indicted for mishandling classified information, the recent State Department Inspector General report verifies that she did violate the rules in effect for handling email and that her statements over the past year have been false. At very least her actions violated rules to promote government transparency, and were a sign of both dishonest and foolish behavior.

While not as devastating as an indictment, the facts of the email scandal could be damaging in a general election campaign. This might not matter against a candidate as weak as Donald Trump, but it is not even certain that the presumptive Republican nominee will actually get the nomination. With Republicans fearful about what Trump might say next, there is increased talk this week from some Republicans and conservative pundits of changing the convention rules so that delegates are not bound to Trump on the first ballot, leaving the possibility of choosing a different nominee.

At present we have what could be the two worst options in history presented as the presumptive nominees. With choices this bad, it would be great if something happens in each party to disrupt the idea that the media’s presumptive nominees are the inevitable nominees.

Mark Your Calendar–State Expects To Have Clinton Email Available In 75 Years

Clinton Email

Hillary Clinton was declared to be the presumptive nominee of the Democratic Party by the news media yesterday, on a day when there was no voting taking place. The Democratic establishment probably will get their candidate, but in the process risks losing a generation of voters and alienating independents.

Glenn Greenwald had this to say:

That the Democratic Party nominating process is declared to be over in such an uninspiring, secretive, and elite-driven manner is perfectly symbolic of what the party, and its likely nominee, actually is. The one positive aspect, though significant, is symbolic, while the actual substance — rallying behind a Wall Street-funded, status quo-perpetuating, multimillionaire militarist — is grim in the extreme. The Democratic Party got exactly the ending it deserved.

This is an unprecedented, historical moment as Hillary Clinton becomes the first major party nominee who is under FBI investigation and embroiled in major scandals. There was a time when political parties might have cared about this.

Multiple Freedom of Information Act requests have been requested for Clinton’s email from when she was Secretary of State. There was hope that we might learn more about the person likely to become the next president before election day. Don’t hold your breath. The Hill reports:

The State Department said it would take 75 years for the release of emails from top aides to Hillary Clinton from during her time as secretary of State.

Lawyers said it would take that long to compile the 450,000 pages of records from former Clinton aides Cheryl Mills, Jacob Sullivan and Patrick Kennedy, according to a court filing from last week, which was first reported by CNN.

“Given the Department’s current [Freedom of Information Act] workload and the complexity of these documents, it can process about 500 pages a month, meaning it would take approximately 16-and-2/3 years to complete the review of the Mills documents, 33-and-1/3 years to finish the review of the Sullivan documents, and 25 years to wrap up the review of the Kennedy documents — or 75 years in total,” the State Department said in the filing…

“The volume of FOIA requests received by the Department has tripled since 2008. In fiscal year 2015 alone we received approximately 22,000 FOIA requests,” Trudeau said. “The requests are also frequently more complex and seek larger volumes of documents, requiring significantly more time, resources, and interagency coordination. While we have increased staffing for our FOIA office, our available resources are still nonetheless constrained.”

Perhaps the volume wouldn’t have been so high if Clinton had complied with laws in effect when she was Secretary of State to promote government transparency in the administration Barack Obama promised would be the most transparent ever.

This includes requests from both the right and the left. David Sirota requested Clinton’s State Department correspondence regarding the Trans-Pacific Partnership in July 2015. He initially was told he would receive the documents in April 2016. He has now been told this is being delayed until November 31, 2016. That is not only after the election, but on a day which does not exist. (Thirty days hath September, April, June, and November…).

Considering Hillary Clinton’s long standing opposition to transparency and open-government, I expect that if she is elected there will be a lot of information held for November 31 in future years.

Sanders Criticizes Conflict of Interest With Clinton Foundation & Clinton’s Interventionist Foreign Policy Views

sanders-raises-new-critique-agai

Bernie Sanders has tried to stick to the issues when campaigning, despite a dishonest Rovian-style campaign from Clinton. While there should be no place in a campaign for the types of lies used by Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump, discussing an opponents actual record is fair game if done honestly. Sanders decided against making use of the email and other scandals surrounding Hillary Clinton. Of course he also said that the investigations were being conducted and, while he did not use the scandals against Clinton in the campaign, he never exonerated Clinton for her actions (even if Clinton supporters cherry-pick quotes to give that impression). Sanders is finally changing course.

The Hill reports on Sanders making references to the Foundation scandals when interviewed on CNN.  While he has mentioned other conflicts of interest involving Clinton and her paid speeches, I am not aware of him discussing this until now.

Sanders hits Clinton Foundation over foreign donations

Democratic presidential hopeful Bernie Sanders criticized the Clinton Foundation for accepting donations from foreign governments in an interview aired Sunday, calling it a conflict of interest.

“Do I have a problem when a sitting secretary of State and a foundation run by her husband collects many, many dollars from foreign governments — governments which are dictatorships?

“Yeah, I do have a problem with that. Yeah, I do,” Sanders said on CNN’s “State of the Union.”

When host Jake Tapper asked if he thought it was a conflict of interest, Sanders said, “I do.”

CNN reports that Sanders also took his criticism of Clinton’s militaristic foreign policy views further than his previous criticism on her Iraq vote:
Bernie Sanders unleashed a sharp attack on Hillary Clinton over foreign policy on Sunday, casting her as too eager to use U.S. military force and saying her family charity’s acceptance of foreign countries’ contributions could be a conflict of interest.

The Vermont senator told CNN’s Jake Tapper the former secretary of state is too quick to “rush in” and remove dictators and he criticized Clinton’s approaches to Iraq, Libya and Syria.

“I worry about that, yeah, I do. I think her support for the war in Iraq was not just an aberration,” Sanders said of Clinton’s vote to authorize the Iraq War, in the interview that aired on “State of the Union.”

“I think that her willingness to kind of push President (Barack) Obama to overthrow (Libyan leader Moammar) Gaddafi and lead to the kind of instability that we’re seeing now in Libya — not inconsistent with her other views on Syria, where she wants a no-fly zone, which I think can suck us into never-ending conflict in that area,” he said.

I wonder whether he would have done better if he had criticized Clinton on these topics from the beginning of the race. Unless he can change the votes of those in the Democratic establishment who created a system which tilted the nomination towards Clinton from the start, Sanders cannot win enough delegates to win the nomination. Despite this, Sanders supporters remain firmly behind him, and nobody knows what he will do next. It should be tempting to remain in the race, both to push his views and to remain an alternative if Clinton’s scandals do force her from the race before the convention. While it is unlikely she will be forced out, it is still a possibility as she does remain under investigation by the FBI, in addition to having a very negative report on the email scandal from the State Department Inspector General.

Sanders might also feel more free to continue to criticize Clinton with Donald Trump looking less likely to win. Sanders repeated his criticism of Trump earlier today in California:

One day before the California primary, Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT) called it “absolutely imperative” that voters turn out to defeat Republican presumptive nominee Donald Trump on Tuesday and cast himself as the candidate best positioned to beat Trump.

“It is absolutely imperative that we defeat Donald Trump as a candidate for President of the United States. I believe I’m the stronger candidate,” Sanders told reporters in San Francisco, highlighting polls that shows him performing better than Democratic frontrunner Hillary Clinton against Trump.

“If the turnout is high tomorrow, we will win. If the turnout is very high, I think we will win by big numbers,” Sanders said.

He also called it “incomprehensible” that the presumptive nominee from a major political party is launching racially-charged attacks targeting a federal judge.

“[Trump] is essentially running his campaign on bigotry, on insulting Mexicans and Latinos, on insulting Muslims, on insulting African-Americans, on insulting women,” Sanders said. “It is clear to me that we have got to do everything that we can as a nation to make certain that Donald Trump does not become President of the United States.”

While Clinton has been doing poorly in the polls against Trump, she continues to have the Democratic advantage in the electoral college, and Trump is showing he has a lot to learn. He has very little campaign organization and continues to create controversy with racist and xenophobic remarks. He ignores facts and treats the campaign like a reality show, where “reality” can be altered to make the show more dramatic. If Clinton cannot move out to a large lead over Trump by the time of the convention, this would be another reason to question whether she should be the Democratic nominee.

Former Adviser to Bill Clinton Suggests Hillary Might Not Be Democratic Nominee

Never Hillary

Many people hope that Hillary Clinton will be prevented from receiving the Democratic nomination, but I would have taken this prediction much less seriously if it wasn’t from a former adviser to Bill Clinton. Douglas Schoen writes, Clinton Might Not Be the Nominee.

A Sanders win in California would powerfully underscore Mrs. Clinton’s weakness as a candidate in the general election. Democratic superdelegates—chosen by the party establishment and overwhelmingly backing Mrs. Clinton, 543-44—would seriously question whether they should continue to stand behind her candidacy…

Another problem: In recent weeks the perception that Mrs. Clinton would be the strongest candidate against Donald Trump has evaporated. The Real Clear Politics polling average has Mrs. Clinton in a statistical tie with Mr. Trump, and recent surveys from ABC News/Washington Post and Fox News show her two and three points behind him, respectively.

Then there is that other crack in the argument for Mrs. Clinton’s inevitability: Bernie Sanders consistently runs stronger than she does against Mr. Trump nationally, beating him by about 10 points in a number of recent surveys…

Mrs. Clinton also faces growing legal problems. The State Department inspector general’s recent report on Mrs. Clinton’s use of a private email server while she was secretary of state made it abundantly clear that she broke rules and has been far from forthright in her public statements. The damning findings buttressed concerns within the party that Mrs. Clinton and her aides may not get through the government’s investigation without a finding of culpability somewhere.

With Mrs. Clinton reportedly soon to be interviewed by the FBI, suggesting that the investigation is winding up, a definitive ruling by the attorney general could be issued before the July 25 Democratic convention in Philadelphia. Given the inspector general’s report, a clean bill of health from the Justice Department is unlikely.

Finally, with Mrs. Clinton’s negative rating nearly as high as Donald Trump’s, and with voters not trusting her by a ratio of 4 to 1, Democrats face an unnerving possibility. Only a month or two ago, they were relishing the prospect of a chaotic Republican convention, with a floor fight and antiestablishment rebellion in the air. Now the messy, disastrous convention could be their own.

There are increasing rumblings within the party about how a new candidate could emerge at the convention. John Kerry, the 2004 nominee, is one possibility. But the most likely scenario is that Vice President Joe Biden—who has said that he regrets “every day” his decision not to run—enters the race.

Mr. Biden would be cast as the white knight rescuing the party, and the nation, from a possible Trump presidency. To win over Sanders supporters, he would likely choose as his running mate someone like Sen. Elizabeth Warren who is respected by the party’s left wing.

It is unprecidented to have a party embrace a candidate such as Hillary Clinton who is involved in such major scandals. It is as if the Republicans had nominated Richard Nixon after the Watergate scandal broke.

So far Democrats do not seem all that concerned about nominating Clinton. If there weren’t enough reasons for the party to keep Clinton from being the nominee, the State Department’s Inspector General report should have put an end to her campaign.

Yesterday I noted a poll showing that seventy-one percent of Democras think Clinton should remain in the race even if indicted. While exact numbers from Rasmussen have to  be taken with a grain of salt, I have found that many Democrats do continue to defend Clinton and have no doubt they would continue to do so if indicted, or even if she was videotaped kicking puppies and babies.

While the chances are low, the possibility of stopping Hillary is far greater than in 2008, when Clinton speculated that Obama might not receive the nomination due to assasination. Sanders should continue to fight for every possible delegate to maximizes the chances that if Clinton is stopped he can win the nomination. In making the argument to both voters and superdelegates as to why he should be the nominee instead of Clinton, he should also stop limiting his campaign by refraining from talknig about the scandals.

Chris Cillizza refers to Sanders’ decision to not talk about Clinton’s email as the biggest mistake of his campaign:

That’s not to say that if Sanders had aggressively raised questions about Clinton’s email practices, he would have beaten her for the nomination; he still might not have. But rather than trying to seize on a primary in Pennsylvania or New York — both of which he lost — as the game-changing moment in the race, Sanders might actually have been able to prosecute a longer-term case against Clinton in a spot where she was (and is) clearly vulnerable.

Large majorities of the public — including the oft-touted independent voter — believe that the words “honest” and “trustworthy” don’t describe Clinton. The email story — even with Sanders virtually ignoring it — has helped erode those numbers over the past 14 months. The email controversy plays directly into many of the things that people — including Democrats! — don’t like or are wary of when it comes to the Clintons. The sense that the rules don’t apply to them. That they believe the world is out to get them. That they only keep people close who slavishly repeat back to them what they want to hear.

The Democratic Culture of Corruption–71% Of Democrats Believe Clinton Should Keep Running Even If Indicted

Clinton Prison number

It has been clear for a while that a majority of Democrats will back Hillary Clinton no matter what she does. If they can accept a militaristic neocon who is far right on civil liberties and spent her time in the Senate working with the religious right, they would probably continue to support her if she was filmed bar-b-quing puppies. While we don’t have hard data to confirm this, we now have data to show that a majority of Democrats think she should continue to run even if indicted. While the source is sometimes questionable, I doubt that the house bias for Republicans affects much in this Rasmussen poll:

Most continue to believe likely Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton is a lawbreaker, but half of all voters also say a felony indictment shouldn’t stop her campaign for the presidency.

The latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone and online survey finds that 43% of Likely U.S. Voters think Clinton should immediately stop campaigning if she is charged with a felony in connection with her use of a private e-mail server while secretary of State. Fifty percent (50%), however, think she should continue running until a court determines her guilt or innocence. (To see survey question wording, click here.)

Voters were evenly divided on this question in January, but at that time we didn’t include the name of any candidate.

Among Democratic voters, 71% believe Clinton should keep running, a view shared by only 30% of Republicans and 46% of voters not affiliated with either major party.

Forty percent (40%) of all voters say they are less likely to vote for Clinton because of the e-mail issue, while nearly half (48%) say it will have no impact on their vote. Just eight percent (8%) say the issue makes them more likely to vote for the former first lady.

Sixty-five percent (65%) consider it likely that Clinton broke the law by sending and receiving e-mails containing classified information through a private e-mail server while serving as secretary of State. This includes 47% who say it’s Very Likely. These findings are unchanged from January. Thirty percent (30%) still say Clinton is unlikely to have broken the law with the e-mail arrangement, with 16% who say it’s Not At All Likely.

To repeat, seventy-one percent of Democrats don’t even think that an indictment would be enough of a reason for Hillary Clinton to leave the race. Remember when Democrats used to complain about the Republican culture of corruption?

While there has been evidence of Clinton’s violation of the laws in effect as of 2009 for quite a while, the recent State Department Inspector General report verified this and demolished Clinton’s claims of the past year. The report showed how she knowingly violated the Federal Records Act, attempted to hide these violations, and failed to cooperate with the investigation. Clinton also used her private email to avoid compliance with the Freedom of Information Act, with several court cases regarding this in progress. The FBI continues to investigate her mishandling of classified information.

While people lower down have been prosecuted for far less than what Clinton has done with regards to classified information, many (including myself) believe that she will not be prosecuted. Rasmussen previously found that only 25 percent believe Clinton will be indicted. As a majority consider her to be guilty, this is a measure of distrust in the system as opposed to any belief that Clinton is innocent. The IG report might increase the chances of prosecution due to showing her unprecedented actions in exclusively using a private email system did represent an intentional violation of the rules.

Clinton’s actions at best represent a serious violation of rules designed to promote government transparency, as well as to maintain the historical record, showing Clinton to have been dishonest in her accounts of the scandal for the past year. At worst, Clinton might have been trying to hide evidence of  influence peddling at the State Department and might have jeopardized the secrecy of classified information. While it might not matter against an opponent as weak as Donald Trump, it is unprecedented, and possibly foolhardy, for a major party to nominate a candidate who is involved in such a major scandal. The fact that Clinton’s supporters don’t even care is a further disappointment, even if not unexpected. I imagine that they wouldn’t care if Clinton were to ride out the election, and then pardon herself if elected.