Results 1 to 3 of 3
Like Tree2Likes
  • 1 Post By lorrie
  • 1 Post By Judy

Thread: Clinton Was Never Intended to Be the Democrat Nominee

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

  1. #1
    Senior Member lorrie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    Redondo Beach, California
    Posts
    5,443

    Clinton Was Never Intended to Be the Democrat Nominee

    May 2, 2016
    Clinton Was Never Intended to Be the Democrat Nominee




    By Joe Herring

    Former speaker of the House John Boehner recently spoke ill of fellow Republican Ted Cruz in a Q&A at Stanford University. His comments likening the candidate to "Lucifer in the flesh" got all the media attention, leaving this virtually unreported:

    Boehner's comments also included a reference to the ongoing FBI investigation into Clinton's use of a private email server while she was at the State Department, speculating on what might happen if the scandal widens.


    "Don't be shocked if two weeks before the convention, here comes Joe Biden parachuting in and Barack Obama fanning the flames to make it all happen," the former speaker said.

    I've been warning of this for more than a year, albeit for a different reason.


    Even someone as self-absorbed as Hillary must surely realize she has too much baggage, too many demonstrable lies, and too many viable avenues of investigation by officials who care more for country than party. These are the anchors that will draw Secretary Clinton below the waves, dooming her bid for the presidency.


    It is my contention that this is all according to plan.


    To understand the dynamic, it is important to look back at the genesis of Clinton's legal issues. She clearly mishandled highly classified information during her tenure as secretary of state. Some would go farther and call it intentional exposure of state secrets, but absent further revelations from the FBI investigation, that remains speculative, however likely it may appear.


    Given the decidedly odd nature of this year's electoral climate, speculation is as good an exercise as any, so let's flesh out this particular line of reasoning.


    We know that Clinton's excuse for placing a private server in her home for the processing of state secrets via email doesn't pass the laugh test. Supposedly seeking "convenience," citing the desire to carry only one smartphone for all correspondence rather than one for work and another for personal, Clinton established this server in the basement of her private home, also hosting email accounts for her two closest aides, Huma Abedin and Cheryl Mills.


    Of course, your average middle-schooler could have told Secretary Clinton that it would be much easier to abandon the government-issued BlackBerry in favor of a smartphone capable of accessing more than one email account than it would be to set up an entire self-hosted network, vulnerable to hackers, in her home at Chappaqua.


    What may be a more reasonable explanation is that Secretary Clinton wanted the freedom to permit access to state secrets at her behest, to parties unknown, perhaps in exchange for some of those remarkably large contributions to the Clinton foundation.


    It strains credulity to think that people would toss around such princely sums on the off chance that she might actually become president one day. Our enemies are nothing if not pragmatic. They would've insisted on a far more immediate return on investment one not possible if information had to first be accessed and retrieved from State Department-hosted servers before passing on to foundation "contributors."


    The weakness in her plan stems from the discovery of her personal network, revealed by the Romanian hacker known as "Guccifer." The same hacker was recently extradited to the United States at the request of those investigating Clinton's emailgate.


    Assuming that FBI Director Comey is indeed gathering prosecutable evidence against Mrs. Clinton, it would stand to reason that a political operative of Ms. Clinton's stature would have arranged an escape for such a contingency.


    Here is my reasoning: realizing that the evidence against her could rise to the level of treason, Secretary Clinton has struck a bargain with the Obama White House that in return for bowing out at or near the convention, she will receive a full pardon in order to ensure that she will never see the inside of a prison cell.


    She takes the slings and arrows, exhausting the opposition research budgets of Republican campaigns, leaving V.P. Biden and Sen. Warren largely immune from scrutiny during these long months of primaries and caucuses.


    By the time she begs off the nomination, citing medical issues, the Republicans will have barely three months to investigate and counter the actual nominees, Biden and Warren.


    Those among the electorate who are itching to make history with a female president will believe themselves to be doing precisely that by voting for a Biden/Warren ticket, albeit with a four-year "on-the-job training" period.


    Elizabeth Warren is easily as "progressive" as Clinton (likely having more in common with Bernie Sanders) but doesn't carry the ethical corruption baggage that engulfs the wife of Monica Lewinsky's ex-boyfriend.


    Joe Biden doesn't carry the intellectual heft necessary to attain the presidency as a stand-alone candidate, but teamed with a soon to be historical figure in Warren, his star shines far more brightly.


    Clinton avoids prison and walks away with hundreds of millions in campaign donations. Obama gets a third term via Biden, and Democrats everywhere get to gush about their tolerance and forward thinking by electing the first female vice president/president in waiting.


    Republicans are caught on their heels, holding years of now worthless Clinton research while having virtually no contemporary files on their actual opponents.


    Whenever Democrats accuse Republicans of some shady malfeasance, rest assured that it is they who are engaged in precisely the crime they allege. Given the left-wing media narrative of stolen nominations and convention chicanery, it is more than plausible that the scenario outlined above is something more than pure speculation.


    By mid-summer, we will all know if I'm right. I first posited this scenario when Secretary Clinton announced her candidacy. Just remember, you heard it here first.


    The author is the communications director for the Global Faith Institute, (globalfaith.org) and writes from Omaha, Neb. He welcomes visitors to his website at readmorejoe.com.

    pkskyali likes this.

  2. #2
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Posts
    41,757
    Trump will smash a Biden Warren ticket. The Democrats don't realize what they're up against with Trump. They hate him so much they never took time to understand their own lies, so easily blown to bits in a general election campaign, they've turned their backs so they wouldn't have to face the true heart, intelligence and greatness of this man.

    They have deliberately underestimated him like so many have, because they preferred an attack game of gossip and lies instead of reality and fact and most importantly, his positions and policies on how to fix our country.

    They wrongfully believe this will be an election of personalities, who likes who personality better (favorables versus unfavorables), while totally burying the reason Americans vote which is a candidate's policy and positions.

    They prefer listening to airheads talking through nose on TV than listening and understanding the policies and positions of Donald Trump, not today, not since December, not since June, not since 2011, but his whole life.

    That is their fatal mistake, not that it would have made any difference, because the Dems policies on immigration are as bad as the Reps policies on free trade.

    Trump is building the bridge that unites the American Voter behind both his policies on immigration and trade, which the Republican Establishment has fought hard against, but lost, and which the Democrats can't fight against at all.

    SCOTT BROWN FOR VP!
    Beezer likes this.

  3. #3
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    1,150
    This is a great article. Up until now, I never really understood what all the excitement over the private server was all about. That alone should not have been any kind of legal issue. But if it was used to communicate with secure government servers, this is something that should have been cleared with the government network administrators. And there is no assuming that they would have allowed it at all.
    Support ALIPAC'sFIGHT AGAINST illegal immigration & Amnesty by joining our E-mail Alerts at http://eepurl.com/cktGTn

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 6
    Last Post: 04-25-2016, 12:03 PM
  2. Replies: 1
    Last Post: 01-25-2016, 01:52 AM
  3. Democrat Nominee Obama Supports Illegal Immigration
    By MW in forum News & Releases from Other Groups
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 06-09-2008, 10:17 PM
  4. Hillary Clinton isn't a Democrat
    By Jean in forum General Discussion
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: 10-07-2007, 10:39 AM
  5. Immigration memo intended for Rove arrives on Democrat's fax
    By Brian503a in forum illegal immigration News Stories & Reports
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 09-20-2005, 08:30 AM

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •