A COUP, THROUGH and THROUGH (3 of 3)

(Note to Readers:  The “COUP” Series is now complete.  See, A COUP, THROUGH and THROUGHEPILOGUE.)

© 2010 jbjd

A COUP, THROUGH and THROUGH (3 of 3) is the final installment in the 3-part series describing the fraud pulled off at the 2008 DNC Services Corporation Presidential Nominating Convention in order to ensure Barack Obama would receive the nomination so that his name would appear next to the D on the general election ballot.  The groundwork for the present article, “The Coup at the Convention,” was laid in the first 2 (two) installments, A COUP, THROUGH and THROUGH (1 of 3); and A COUP, THROUGH and THROUGH (2 of 3).  Trust me, if you understand what got us here, to the convention, then you are now at the same jumping off point as those people who were determined to steal the nomination.  Yep; just like you, from here on in, they were winging it, too.  Because something they hadn’t anticipated happened at the start of the convention which could have derailed their best laid plans to obtain the nomination.  Indeed, as I wasn’t there, it is only in retrospect I can explain to you what I later realized is about to go down, notwithstanding as it turns out, I was responsible for what happened next.

The Coup at the Convention

Judging by how hard they had fought to elbow Clinton out of the race at the beginning of the primary and caucus contests, powerful parties interested in placing Obama in the White House knew from the start, the only certain way to force this flawed candidate on the American people was to limit his exposure to public scrutiny by sewing up his nomination well in advance of the August 25 nominating convention.  They failed, miserably.  Indeed, while publicly maintaining since February, his nomination was a fait accompli; even they didn’t feel comfortable enough until August 14 that, having strong-armed a sufficient number of pledged delegates and paid off the rest, no matter what, they would pull off the nomination in an open roll call vote of pledged delegates from all states on the floor of the convention; to concede consistent with past practice the name of any other candidate seeking the nomination should also be formally entered into the roll.

Yes, they were confident on August 14 and for almost the next 11 (eleven) days that their Herculean investments in his candidacy over the past couple of years would pay off, better late than never.  And in the end, even accounting for the open roll call vote of pledged delegates from every state, from the floor of the convention,  he would walk away with the nomination.

Have Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) recruit Obama in the summer of 2006 to run against Clinton for the 2008 Presidential nomination?  Check.  Immediately thereafter, have DNC Chair Howard Dean rig the delegate apportionment process so as to ensure that Clinton, despite winning on account of real votes cast in state contests for her, would nonetheless lose and Obama, despite losing the actual vote count, would win?  Check, check, and check.   Have him appoint Pentacostal Preacher Leah Daughtry, DNC Chief of Staff, to be the CEO of the 2008 DNC  Services Corporation Presidential Nominating Convention?  Check.  Have him make Nancy Pelosi (D-CA), Speaker of the U.S. House of Representatives and 3rd in line of Presidential succession, the Chair of the 2008 Convention thus enabling her to control the nomination process (and after making him the nominee, to co-sign the Certification of his Nomination swearing to election officials he is Constitutionally eligible to be President to get them to print his name on the ballot in states whose laws only allow on the ballot the names of candidates who are legally qualified for the job)?  Check.

Then, on August 25, the first day of the convention, something unexpected happened which began to unsettle his henchmen; and which, by Tuesday, August 26, the second night of the convention, had panicked them into pulling a bait and switch on the scheduled roll call vote of pledged delegates from all states on the floor of the convention, scrambling to preserve the chance that just through the use of that roll call, he could get the nomination.

That’s when they scrapped the scheduled open roll call vote of all states on the floor of the convention, simultaneously orchestrating a convoluted ploy affording them plausible deniability, they had not.

The ‘change’ in voting procedure, fashioned by both the Clinton and Obama camps Tuesday night, was rolled out to the press in Wednesday morning’s conference call.  (Even the word “change” was never used.) Bill Burton, spokesperson for the Obama campaign,  handed off the details to Jenny Backus; and she only prefaced her remarks by saying, she would “talk a little bit today, um, about some of the, um, process that you will see that will happen tonight, um, at the convention.”

Last night, convention secretary Alice Germond; ah, Jeff Berman, who is a senior adviser to the Barack Obama campaign; and Craig Smith who is a senior adviser to Hillary Clinton sent out a joint note to, um, all of the state delegation chairs with some information about, um, Wednesday’s roll call vote.  Ah, basically, um, here’s the guidance that we can give you, ah, so far.  Ah, last night and this morning, state delegations received vote tally sheets for their delegates.  Um, throughout the day today they’ll be distributing those tally sheets to their delegates.  Um, the cheat sheets will be completed by 4pm mountain time.  Eh, today from about 3 to 5pm mountain time   the voting and roll call procedure will happen.  Um, the convention will gavel open at 3, ah, there’ll be, um, 3 nominating speeches, um, for Senator Clinton, a nominating speech and seconding speeches, ah, and then a nominating speech and 3 seconding speeches for Senator Obama.  Ah, they will, ah, each candidate’s speeches will total, ah, no more than 15 minutes, so that’ll be about a half an hour of speeches.  Once the speeches are concluded the vote tally sheets will be collected, ah, by the office of the secretary, ah, and then we will begin the roll call of the states and the delegation chair or her designee will announce the totals for each candidate.  So, that’s the procedure how the roll call vote is gonna work today.

Um, and, ah, you can look forward to later this morning, ah, a joint statement from the Clinton and Obama office about who will be giving those nominating speeches, um, for each of us.

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2008/08/27/roll-call-details-hammered-out/?fbid=yBSb83MFwB9

A reporter from BBC (whose name I did not get) asked, “…in reference to the roll call vote, I just wanted to confirm that there’s not going to be stoppage of, of any sort of states, that all 50 states will have their say and their vote tallies announced, right?  There won’t be any kind of stopping?” Id.

Ms. Backus replied, “Um, the guidance that we’re giving you on the roll call vote is basically exactly what I just, ah, said to you right there.  Um, it will go from, ah, 3 to 5pm mountain, ah, which is 5 to 7pm eastern, um, and that’s the procedure on how it’s gonna work.”  Id.

Joe Manus, St. Louis Post Dispatch asked, “So the roll call will be at the beginning of tonight’s proceedings; and will the states be doing their unofficial tallies like this morning at the breaksfast?” Id.

“States will, um, begin to do their, um, unofficial tallies at the breakfast and throughout the day, um, and they will turn in those tally sheets, ah, this evening after either during or after, um, the nominating speeches before the call of the roll begins.” Id.

In sum, Ms. Backus told the press, pledged delegates will begin voting at their hotels this morning and throughout the day as delegation chairs distribute the “cheat sheets” to members of their delegations, only until 4:00 mountain time, when they are due to be delivered to the floor of the convention to be added into state totals which will be announced during the roll call of all states on the floor of the convention beginning at 3:00 mountain time.

Get it?

Delegates awoke on Wednesday, August 27, and shuffled off to another round of state delegation breakfasts where, in addition to their coffee and tea, they were now served up this bitter elixir from their delegation chairs.  They would have to cast votes for their candidates after breakfast, in the hotel, behind closed doors, and then re-group on the floor of the convention.

Their response?  Total confusion.

At least according to this account published in the Austin Chronicle at 1:33 on Wednesday afternoon, describing what had happened that morning when Boyd Richie, Chair of the Texas Democratic Party (“TDP”), a super delegate who had committed to Obama before the end of the primary/caucus contests, announced the new plans to the Texas delegation.  (All mistakes appear in original.)

Finally, a Roll Call Vote

Boyd Richie announced a change to the Roll Call Vote process at this morning’s Delegate Breakfast. After receiving our delegate credentials, we were directed to a small room in the west wing of the host hotel. Inside the room we presented our delegate credential and ID, then placed our president preference (Obama, Clinton, or Abstain) and signed our name. This was our official vote. The list will be copied and published then delivered to the Pepsi Center via a shuttle bus around 12:30pm (Emphasis added by jbjd.)

Mr. Richie stated that officials staying at other hotels would still have the opportunity to vote later today. (Emphasis added by jbjd.)

Chairman Richie was upset both visibility and emotionally when some delegates asked whether observers would be present during the voting process. “We’re all Democrats”, said Richie in an angry tone. Finally, after several interruptions from some delegates requesting an observer, he asked the Obama registered agent Ron Kirk and Hillary registered agent Garry Mauro whether they wanted observers. Registered agents are the official representatives for campaigns. Mr. Kirk said they [Obama delegates] were not interested in having observers. As he said this, some Obama supporters began to chant, “Unity, unity.” In place of Mr. Mauro, John Oeffinger represented the Hillary campaign and honored the request of Hillary delegates to assign observers. John then immediately scrambled about the ballroom to schedule observers in shifts.

Strangely, we’ve also been told that we’ll vote again this evening. Mr. Richie said he did not know the process for delegates that wish to change their vote from what they placed on this morning’s ballot. (Emphasis added by jbjd.)

After voting, we were sent to a table to obtain our seating assignment for this evenings Roll Call Vote at the Pepsi Center.

So, how many times do we vote? Which one counts? I guess we’ll find out tonight.

http://www.austinchronicle.com/gyrobase/News/Blogs/index.html/objID666330/blogID/

How many times do we vote?”  “Which one counts?”  Mr. Richie’s announcement there was a “change” in the voting procedure obviously left the Texas delegation with the impression, the ‘process’ used by the DNC to choose their Presidential nominee was ‘play it by ear.’

In contrast, that same morning, at 9:43, the Rocky Mountain News announced convention committee CEO Leah D. Daughtry described the voting process was ‘business as usual,’ pursuant to the ‘rules.’

Convention roll-call plans set for tonight

COLORADO CONVENTION CENTER — Each state at tonight’s session of the Democratic National Convention will announce the results of its delegate tally during a roll call that has been the source of much speculation and controversy this week.

Convention committee CEO Leah D. Daughtry said the roll call will take place as it has in previous conventions, despite speculations that a compromise between Sens. Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton might result in a departure from the usual process.

The roll call is guided by the rules of the party,” Daughtry said at this morning’s convention press briefing. “It will proceed just as the rules dictate. (Emphasis added by jbjd.) Every state and every delegate will have the opportunity to vote. Everyone will be represented. Everyone will have their votes counted.”

The roll call will begin with each state announcing its delegate vote totals for the two Democratic candidates after a series nominating and seconding speeches for Clinton and Obama, Daughtry said.

Voting has already begun, as delegates began receiving tally cards this morning. (Emphasis added by jbjd.)

http://www.rockymountainnews.com/news/2008/aug/27/convention-roll-call-plans-set/

Guided by the rules of the party…just as the rules dictate?”  Rules?  What rules?

Certainly not the Delegate Selection Rules, 2, Participation, F:

In accordance with Article Nine, Section 12 of the Charter of the Democratic Party of the United States, votes shall not be taken by secret ballot at any stage of the delegate selection
process
…?

http://s3.amazonaws.com/apache.3cdn.net/3e5b3bfa1c1718d07f_6rm6bhyc4.pdf

Or Article Nine, Section 12 of the Charter:

All meetings of the Democratic National Committee, the Executive Committee, and all other official Party committees, commissions and bodies shall be open to the public, and votes shall not be taken by secret ballot.)

http://s3.amazonaws.com/apache.3cdn.net/58e635582dc516dd52_5wsmvyn09.pdf

This drivel points to why I said in COUP (2 of 3), it’s useless trying to reinstate order to the Democrat’s Presidential nominating process by falling back on the rules, regulations, and Charter of the Democratic Party.

By 12:53, Ben Smith at Politico was announcing Barack Obama’s campaign has reverted to plans for a traditional roll call on the convention floor… (Emphasis added by jbjd.)

There’s a bit of confusion about the plans for a roll call, and some Democrats say they’re dissatisfied by a process that has them voting in private, by state. But that’s the old-fashioned way, says my colleague Andy Glass, who’s covered these for years.

http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/0808/A_traditional_roll_call.html

But whichever version of events you bought into – “just as the rules dictate”;  “the old-fashioned way”; or ‘play it by ear’ – one thing was clear.  From the outside looking in, it wasn’t easy to recognize these events for what they were:  the signal that Obama’s warriors had decided at the last minute to scrub the scheduled open roll call vote of pledged delegates from all states on the floor of the convention, which was expected to have been followed by Clinton’s release of her pledged delegates, and then another vote after that, which was supposed to give him the nomination.

Incredible, huh.  Thousands of eye witnesses in Denver, including the press, scrutinizing every detail of the goings on inside the convention, and no one asked why whoever was in charge had decided to scrap the open roll call of pledged delegates.  Why?  Because they lacked the information necessary to recognize what they were observing.  So, what was this ‘thing’ that happened under everyone’s nose yet flew under the radar, so significant it caused Obama’s allies in the DNC to re-orient the nomination process at the last minute in order to hide votes for Clinton from her pledged delegates as the preferred means to guarantee his nomination?

Word had spread to the Clinton pledged delegates sent to the convention from those 13 vote binding states, including CA, that the laws in their states required them to hold fast to their candidate through at least the first round of voting at the convention; and that their Attorneys General had received complaints Obama’s people were subverting the law by trying to get those delegates to promise to switch their votes to him, even before they got to the convention. We know that at least one of those A’sG, Thurbert Baker (D-GA), instructed that state’s pledged delegates to obey the law.  Consequently, these delegates were going to obey the law, and vote for her through at least the first round.  Some, including Clinton pledged delegates from CA, even after that.

So, why was this such a big deal? BECAUSE OBAMA AND HIS CONSORTS HAD ONLY AGREED TO HOLD AN OPEN ROLL CALL VOTE ON THE FLOOR OF THE CONVENTION RELYING ON THE FACT, SEVERAL HUNDRED CLINTON PLEDGED DELEGATES FROM VOTE BINDING STATES WOULD HAVE NO IDEA THEY WERE ‘PLEDGED’ PLEDGED TO CLINTON WHEN THEY REACHED THE FLOOR OF THE CONVENTION. Thus, those pledged delegates who had already been successfully co-opted  to switch their votes to him, added to those who would enthusiastically switch to him in the fabricated momentum of the occasion; plus those who would fatalistically give in to the feigned inevitability of his nomination, would easily put his numbers over the top.

But didn’t I say, in COUP (1 of 3), Obama’s agents would have known which states had vote binding laws before they twisted the arms of Clinton delegates in those states since the state delegate selection Plan sent to the RBC for approval had to include details of any state laws respecting the conduct at the convention of pledged delegates from that state? Yep; that’s what I said.  So now you’re probably thinking, ‘well, jbjd, if Obama’s people knew about the laws in those states by looking at those delegate selection Plans then, wouldn’t any delegates seeking guidance as to their conduct at the convention by examining the state Plan, be able to read about the state’s vote binding status, too?’  Nope.  Know why?  Because there was nothing in those state Plans about vote binding laws. And now you are probably shaking your heads.  Why did I say the Plans submitted to the RBC explain how Obama’s people knew in advance which states had vote binding laws if the Plans contain no information about vote binding laws!

To answer this question, you have to read the fine print in the RBC Regulations.

Section 2, Submission and Review of Plans, regulation 2.2, Formal Submission, reads, “Each State Party Committee shall include the following documentation with the submission of its Plan to the RBC…”  “I., “… a copy of all state statutes reasonably related to the delegate selection process…”  Id. Did you catch that?  The rules don’t say, this documentation about special state laws regarding how pledged delegates must vote at the convention is a part of the state delegate selection Plan.  The RBC rules only tell the state committee, when submitting the delegate selection Plan for our approval, you have to attach this additional information.

In other words, this additional information forwarded to the RBC by the state party about special state laws respecting party delegates – this would include laws spelling out how to submit to state election officials the name of the Presidential nominee to be printed on the state ballot –  does not become a part of the accompanying state delegate Plan.  Wanna see?

Here’s California’s approved 2008 Delegate Selection Plan.  Nothing in either the Table of Contents or the body of the Plan, references any special laws requiring pledged delegates to vote for the candidate voters in that state elected them to represent, on the floor of the convention.

This means that pledged delegates wading through the various DNC documents for guidance as to how they should vote at the convention would only find this line on p. 19 in the DNC Call for the 2008 Convention:

All delegates to the National Convention pledged to a presidential candidate shall in all good conscience reflect the sentiments of those who elected them.  (Emphasis added by jbjd.)

“Good conscience.”  But nothing about the law!

Here’s just a sample of language I pulled together from the laws in some of those vote binding states.

“Each person selected as a delegate shall sign a pledge that the person will continue to support at the national convention the candidate for President of the United States the person is selected as favoring until 2 convention nominating ballots have been taken.”  OR

“Each political party shall, on the first ballot at its national convention, cast this Commonwealth’s vote for the candidates as determined by the primary or party caucus.”  KY

“Each delegate or alternate delegate to the national convention of his political party shall cast their vote on all ballots for the candidate who received this state’s vote.”  OK

“Each delegate to the national convention shall use his best efforts at the convention for the party’s presidential nominee candidate who received the greatest number of votes in the presidential preference election until the candidate is nominated for the office of president of the United States by the convention.”  AZ

“As a delegate to the national convention of the Democratic Party, I pledge myself to vote on the first ballot for the nomination of president by the Democratic Party as required by Section 1-8-60 NMSA 1978.”  NM

“Delegates and alternates shall be bound to vote on the first ballot at the national convention for the candidate receiving the most votes in the primary.”  VA

“The delegates to the national conventions shall be bound by the results of the preferential presidential primary for the first two (2) ballots and shall vote for the candidate to whom they are pledged.”  TN

In an Opinion now appended to his state’s binding vote law, the words of the Attorney General of GA reach the heart of similar laws enacted in all of these states:  “This section reflects the legitimate interest of the state in insuring orderliness in the electoral process, and it provides a means of presenting the political preferences of the people of this state to a political party.”  GA

(Can you imagine how long it took me to research the election laws in all 50 states in order to find the 13 states that bound their delegates at the convention?)

The majority of pledged delegates from vote binding states were unaware of their special status coming into the convention.  How can I prove this?  And, more importantly, how do I know that news of their obligations under the vote binding laws of their states still managed to reach Clinton pledged delegates?  And that this new found knowledge was a game changer to the roll call vote?

In the summer of 2008, I was only one of hundreds of citizen activists who became immersed in the machinations of the Presidential nominating process of the Democratic Party.  As I previously explained, one of my contributions was to ‘discover’ and then publicize the existence of those 13 vote binding states.  As I wrote in A COUP, THROUGH and THROUGH (2 of 3), my work did not immediately ignite the endorsement of people who could have spearheaded a massive public education campaign in advance of the convention.  GA was the one state in which I and my team of Georgians were able to get out a concerted campaign to alert both Clinton pledged delegates and AG Baker, Obama’s agents were breaking the law.  And, as a result, AG Baker reminded delegates in that state, “pledged” means pledged. Id. Eventually, in the days immediately preceding the convention, my work on vote binding states did attract the attention of members of the party who, previously unaware these laws existed, saw the strategic value of the work to support the Clinton campaign.  Id.

But what I hadn’t yet told you, is that my work on vote binding states also attracted the attention of another citizen activist, from CA, who not only managed to get inside the convention, but who also had a hand in assembling packets of information that were distributed to all delegates.  Guess what she slipped into these delegate packets?  Yep; my materials on the laws regarding the votes of pledged delegates from vote binding states.

Nancy Pelosi, Chair of the 2008 DNC Convention, was a member of the CA delegation.  She addressed the CA delegates at their first delegation breakfast on Monday, August 25.  Listen as she not-so-subtly twisted arms to get Clinton pledged delegates to violate CA law.  Imagine, the Chair of the 2008 DNC Convention, soliciting Clinton pledged delegates to abandon the will of the voters, in defiance of the law, in order to support her candidate of choice?   Imagine being a Clinton pledged delegate sitting in the audience under the watchful eye of the powerful Madame Speaker; holding a packet of materials that informed you for the first time, you are from a vote binding state.  How free do you suppose you would feel to question what she was saying, let alone to express disdain at what she was asking you to do?

Another member of the CA delegation receiving this information was Attorney Gloria Allred, a Clinton pledged delegate.  Watch while she informs reporters when Monday’s breakfast was over, that fellow delegates had asked her to research whether the law required them to vote for Clinton on the first round of balloting.  (Some confusion arose because CA election law applicable to either the D or the R Presidential preference primary is codified in separate sections.   But D delegates are bound by law to the candidate voters elected them to represent, arguably until a candidate is nominated at the convention.)  Ms. Allred makes a point of saying, she will vote for Clinton on the first round in order to carry out the will of the voters who elected her; but makes clear, she does not yet know whether such a result is required by law.

By Tuesday morning’s breakfast, Ms. Allred had researched CA election law.  Here she is after breakfast, informally trying to get word out to Clinton pledged delegates,  they are bound to vote for their candidate at the convention.  (I wish I could see the papers she is waving around.  Maybe one of these was my letter to AG Brown complaining Obama was poaching Clinton delegates in his state and asking him to intervene?)

Later that same day, speaking at the end of a rally to celebrate the 88th anniversary of women’s suffrage, the 19th Amendment, Ms. Allred, claiming she was denied the opportunity to formally address fellow delegates at breakfast, now informs the crowds, in CA, the primary is “binding.”  She points out, ‘voting for Clinton is consistent with DNC rules which say, use your “conscience” to represent the voters who elected us, since they elected us to vote for Clinton…’

She reasons, ‘even if Hillary releases, we owe an obligation to the voters.’

That night, Pelosi, Obama, Dean, and Reid, et al. decided to call off the open roll call vote of all states scheduled to take place Wednesday evening on the floor of the convention.

So, instead of waiting until after the first round of voting during the open roll call of all states on the floor of the convention, Clinton released her delegates early Wednesday afternoon.  AFTER THE FIRST ROUND OF VOTING (albeit behind closed doors at the hotel).  Now, technically, according to some of these vote binding laws, pledged delegates from vote binding states were free to vote for the candidate they in “good conscience” (from the DNC Delegate Selection Plan) concluded was a “fair reflection” (from the DNC Charter) of the will of the voters who (indirectly) elected them.  And they might have, except for one thing:  having already voted once, back at the hotel, they would have no opportunity to vote again.

This last minute early release of Clinton delegates from their pledges could have created another problem if it hadn’t also escaped detection.  See, since Clinton did not release her delegates until Wednesday afternoon; when Clinton pledged delegates from vote binding states voted at their hotels Wednesday morning, they had to vote for her according to the law.  Thus, any vote totals from those 13 vote binding states that were then transmitted to the Secretary should have reflected the number of delegates appointed as the result of votes cast in the state for the candidate, at the time of the primary or caucus contest, right?  Not surprisingly, they did not.

Here are the numbers of Clinton pledged delegates awarded as the result of votes voters cast for her in those vote binding states: AZ – 31, CA- 204, GA-27, IN-38, KY-37, MA-55, NH-9 NM-14, OH-74, OK-24, OR-21, TN-40, and VA-29. This makes a total of 609, just from those vote binding states. http://www.thegreenpapers.com/P08/D-HF.phtml The total number of votes from Clinton delegates just from those vote binding states we saw ‘vote’ from the floor of the convention, before NY, should have been 415.  But it wasn’t.  Not even close.  (The low number of Clinton votes becomes even more suspect when you consider, in addition to votes from Clinton pledged delegates from vote binding states, the totals would also have included votes from Clinton pledged delegates who were not legally bound to vote for her but who, in “good conscience,” would have honored the voters who elected them by sticking to their candidate, at least on the first round.)

The DNC refuses to release an ‘official’ tally of votes cast in the hotels, by whom.  I received an email from a KY Clinton pledged delegate who said her delegation chair, Jennifer Moore, ignored her request for a list of that state’s votes, too.  Shortly after the convention, the DNC did release some kind of tally sheet that included ALL states, not just those states voting on the floor of the convention; but they rescinded that list shortly thereafter.   The GreenPapers published that list, with links, that are now inoperative.  In the 2 (two) years since the convention, the DNC has failed to post another list.

According to Andy Glass at Politico, “…there’s not even any formal mechanism within national party rules for each delegate’s vote to be recorded. What’s recorded is the vote of each state delegation.” Id.

The CA delegation passed.  The reason?  According to Don Frederick at the LATimes, “because a tally of its 441 votes had not been completed when the state’s name was called.”  But hadn’t they already voted back at the hotel?  (Evidently, Mr. Frederick is another one of those reporters who is unaware of the laws in those vote binding state.  He writes, “Clinton did not receive a majority in any of the recorded tallies — and in most, Obama’s backing was overwhelming. But Clinton’s support was notable in a few instances, including Arizona (40 votes for Obama, 27 for her), Kentucky (36 for him, 24 for her) and Massachusetts (65 for him, 52 for her).”  “Notable”?  How about, ILLEGAL? AZ, KY, and MA are all vote binding states.)

This means, while we can establish which of Obama’s agents suborned Clinton pledged delegates in vote binding states to violate their pledge; we cannot determine which of those delegates ended up breaking the law.  Including those pledged delegates who are PLEO‘s, or party leaders and elected officials, like mayors, governors, city councilors, and legislative leaders.   And this brings us to the heart of the matter involving Clinton pledged delegates from vote binding states:  the unpledged PLEO’s, better known as super delegates.

See, here’s the thing.  As long as pledged delegates from vote binding states remained unaware of their bound status, Obama could have managed to convert an only slight (contrived) lead in pledged delegates into a landslide win.  Only, this landslide was in jeopardy once pledged delegates from vote binding states learned they were bound by the law.  But so what?  Even without any shenanigans with respect to any of the pledged delegates, based strictly on the number of pledged delegates awarded immediately after the primary and caucus contests ended; neither Clinton nor Obama had the requisite number of votes from pledged delegates alone to win the nomination.  Certainly not on the first round. At some point, if the typical give and take expected of such political theater could not produce a nominee, the unpledged PLEO’s would have broken the impasse.  And the majority of these unpledged PLEO’s had already come out publicly in support of Obama, even in states where Clinton had won the popular vote. In other words, whatever happened along the way, in the end Obama was set to run off with the nomination.

So, why the mad rush to take the nomination just from votes cast by pledged delegates?

Recall what I wrote in A COUP, THROUGH and THROUGH (1 of 3):

DNC rules provide if voting at the convention fails to support one candidate over the other then, special super delegates will add their votes to the totals to reach the number required for nomination. So they were also furiously pouring money into the PAC’s and war chests of these super delegates, in return for which the candidate received a public pledge of support positively correlated to the superior size of his financial investment.

The people who staged the 2008 DNC Services Corporation Presidential Nominating Convention needed the pledged delegates to pull off Obama’s nomination because they did not want you to see that the votes of those unpledged super delegates had been bought and paid for, well in advance of the convention, by his wealthy benefactors…

From OpenSecrets:

For those elected officials who had endorsed a candidate as of Feb. 25, the presidential candidate who gave more money to the superdelegate received the endorsement 82 percent of the time. In cases where Obama had made a contribution since 2005 but Clinton had given the superdelegate nothing, Obama got the superdelegate’s support 85 percent of the time. And Clinton got the support of 75 percent of superdelegates who got money from her but not from Obama. For this update to the Feb. 14 study the Center combined contribution data with a list of superdelegates and their endorsements compiled by The Politico as of Feb. 25.

http://www.opensecrets.org/capital_eye/inside.php?ID=338

…including Madame Pelosi, his biggest ‘vote fairy godmother’ of all.

From Dr. Lynette Long, in NoQuarter:

“Bought and Paid For! By Nancy Pelosi”

As Americans sat glued to their television sets watching the most hotly contested presidential primary in American history, pundits counted pledged delegates won in caucuses and primaries and discussed the highly prized superdelegates’ endorsements. Eventually it would be these superdelegates, Democratic officials, governors, and members of congress, who would determine the nominee, since neither contestant won enough pledged delegates in the 52 primary contests.

What the pundits forgot to tell the American public was that these superdelegates were doing some counting of their own. They weren’t counting how many of their constituents had voted for Senator Clinton or Senator Obama, but rather how much money was being put into their war chests by the Obama campaign and the Democratic hierarchy. This money, moved from one candidate to another via PAC’s, would determine their endorsements and ultimately the nomination….

http://www.noquarterusa.net/blog/2008/08/13/bought-and-paid-for-by-nancy-pelosi/

And that’s why they pulled off the coup that hid hundreds of votes of Clinton pledged delegates from vote binding states at the 2008 DNC Services Corporation Presidential Nominating Convention.

Conclusion

For readers expecting a sort of summation of the ‘lesson learned’  from all three installments of “A COUP, THROUGH and THROUGH,” the main focus of which series was the fraud pulled off at the 2008 DNC Services Corporation Presidential Nominating Convention, I offer this.

“I can only imagine Clinton would have made a much better President than Obama but, based on how he obtained the nomination, I anticipated he would make a much better crook.”  jbjd.

EPILOG

A lay person looking at this chart of delegates can easily read, the total number of delegates for either candidate fails to get the nomination.  But Obama had bought off a sufficient number of these super delegates to help him steal the nomination.  So, even with a real open roll call vote of all states from the floor of the convention, before the arm twisting and poaching, eventually, the super delegates would have had to intervene to break the impasse.

24 Responses to A COUP, THROUGH and THROUGH (3 of 3)

  1. Michelle says:

    It is amazing how this article still has the power to shock. As a former Dem (now Tea Party) due to these frauds, I am still stunned. The DNC has no honor, no integrity but for the moment they are successful crooks, cheats and liars-what a shame and a scandal on the American people. We will never trust them again. I cannot imagine how you put all of this together-astounding work-thank you so much.
    “I anticipated he would make a much better crook.” I wonder how he can stand to look at himself in the mirror.

    Michelle: I know; even with the role I inadvertently played in this drama, I am still amazed at what they were able to pull off. Wanna hear something that will make you crazy? The model delegate selection plan for 2012 still has no section for responsibilities for pledged delegates from vote binding states. Until the states get their A’sG to enforce the laws, nothing will change. I wish people began to realize, all politics is local. Get your friends to visit the capital with you; and bring the press. (I have to figure out a catchy motto for that.) (Glad you liked my conclusion!)

    Michelle, thank you so much for appreciating the work.

    ADMINISTRATOR

  2. Michelle says:

    jbjd-Attorney’s General not enforcing laws, isn’t that pathetic on it’s face. How do they accept their paychecks in good conscience? Morally reprehensible, I’d say. I’m still in shock-so many thoughts swirling through my mind. I do wonder how anyone, especially Dems in DC can possibly work there it must be much like a snake pit with overtones of vultures-not one could trust another since they all know each others culpability. Sort of makes you wonder who is going to crack up first. No person of conscience could live with these despicable acts.T

    Michelle: But we need to keep pointing out, AG Baker in GA did his job when it came to enforcing the vote binding laws in his state. And he’s a D. Whereas, AG Abbott in TX, an R, has not earned re-election.

    Sorry to tell you this but, to use your words, you will be “in shock” for some time. This article needs to be read and then, re-read. And follow the links, especially the ones in the section near the beginning that describe how the fix was in beginning in the summer of 2006, when Harry Reid asked BO to run. There’s enough material in just this one article to fill several jbjd’s CIVICS for CITIZENS quizzes! ADMINISTRATOR

  3. Michelle says:

    Maybe it is because when we were young we were in many civil rights marches. I keep seeing major civil rights problems-against women, against voters, AG-GA did his job, but wouldn’t the voters of TX be disenfranchised because their AG did not. This is so bad I don’t know how our country can call itself a democracy with the right to vote, in the US lately it seems iffy at best if your vote will be counted. You are right about reading and re-reading all this information it is mind blowing. I kept my Dem registration I can’t wait for the phone calls, when I can tell them how I could not possible vote for crooks, liars and cheats like them.

    Michelle: It’s mind-boggling. It’s RICO territory. Just because they call themselves the DNC doesn’t mean they’re not acting more like gangsters and hoodlums than civic leaders and public officials. ADMINISTRATOR

  4. Michelle says:

    jbjd-coming from Chicago (suburbs) I can honestly say, some of the Mob Guys (it’s inevitable there) we met have more honor and integrity than the DNC jerks-and the Mob Guys are majorly into the Madonna Complex so they never allow women to be abused like the DNC.

    Michelle: Then, obviously, when it comes to honoring women, BO failed to absorb the traditional ‘Chicago mob guy’ culture.
    ADMINISTRATOR

  5. azgo says:

    Fantastic three part series!

    An astonishing trilogy for those of any political affiliation with any view of our state and national election process. We can only feel and realize a sense of shock and awe in this well researched, in depth study and analysis of what took place during a mysterious 2008 presidential nomination season.

    Purely a documentary of events which far exceeds any nimble expectation of political corruption and would make anyone of concern stand up and take notice.

    This wonderful educational collection can only remind us of our duty as citizens to know, not only of how our government works, but also of how our ‘private club’ political parties work. Indeed a toolbox of knowledge for everyone in preparation of our future elections.

    Certainly we can hope that members of the news media will obtain at least one ounce of your investigative ability.

    Excellent job, jbjd!

    azgo: Thank you so much for your high praise of the work. And I want to send a special thanks to you for being a ‘second set of eyes.’ As you know, this last article in the series pre-occupied my life for weeks. Finally, I had to step away to get an honest opinion of the ‘finished’ product!

    It’s not easy to see how someone pulled the wool over your eyes; BECAUSE S/HE PULLED THE WOOL OVER YOUR EYES! It wasn’t like I could ask or, even if I could, like I could expect an honest answer (even if an answer was forthcoming). Yes; the press could take over from here. Maybe if we all send this COUP Trilogy to them, they will. Certainly, we should send this to the press mentioned in any of the 3 installments. Especially Mr. Frederick at the LATimes. ADMINISTRATOR

  6. Al says:

    Alas, the sharp legal mind has weighed in with Part 3…exceptional work, jbjd! We appreciate your keen insights and analysis on the questionable events that transpired during Election 2008. It seemed as early as February 2008 that the fix was in all along, then that unsettling feeling when the “coronation” of sorts begin at the Democratic convention and lasted well into the General Election in November as well. Correct me if I’m wrong, but the folks engineering this coup seemed so confident with their behind the scenes ploy, they even had Obama “campaign” abroad, a full month in advance of the Convention?! Surely, the fix was already in by then.

    Cannot Thank You enough, jbjd, for taking on this herculean effort, but am glad you did/are…keep up the great work. All you can do is what Paul Revere did the night of his now famous ride so long ago…warn us, so the events of Election 2008 won’t rear its ugly head again 2012. No more fixes, no more coronations and no more tampering with the process or outcome.

    Al: To quote you, the only way “the events of Election 2008 won’t rear its ugly head again 2012″ is if we change the system that allowed this to happen in the first place. Once you understand how our political process works and, where it does not work, then you have to fix it. That means, if you live in a vote binding state, contact your AG to find out what recourse exists to ensure the laws regarding party primaries and caucuses are followed, including, how to ensure votes by pledged delegates at party nominating conventions are ON THE RECORD! If your state has no such laws, these need to be enacted. And punishment for violations has to be written into the law. If punishment exists, get the AG to enforce the law!

    If your laws “entitle” the name of the party nominee to appear on your state ballot, amend those laws so that when a party violates state laws, it loses that right.

    Electors must obey laws. Each state needs a law requiring Electors only to elect a President who is Constitutionally eligible for the job. That law also needs built in punishment for violation. (And make sure your legislature rejects the National Popular Vote Initiative! Otherwise, even if your state’s laws are in order; you might be stuck with the ineligible candidate imposed by the next state!)(http://jbjd.org/2010/07/24/npvi-by-hook-and-by-crook/)

    How’s that for starters? In short, there’s a lot of REAL WORK to do. I only explain to you how our political process was subverted. Citizenship in our Constitutional Republic is not a spectator sport.

    Again, thanks for appreciating the hard work that goes into these articles (tomes). ADMINISTRATOR

  7. Michelle says:

    jbjd-I agree with azgo, this one is a work of art. Pulling all these threads of the tangled web and the object was to deceive- “The superdelegates cleaned up on this. But they just didn’t want to go on record.” I assume they did not want to leave an evidence trail, I think they need the cleaning up-I sent the latest article to as many as possible-Oil for Immigration-Breitbart.tv (of course-come on Andrew)-repubx (already mentioned) drkatesview-she is doing her usurpathion in DC-Andrea Shea King-Radio Patriot. You know I will keep forwarding until I run out of ideas. FYI-re: Rasmussen Obama was at -23 Sun;-18 Tues. I think most of the country is catching on, so your articles are coming at a very good time-in my opinion. Hi to your son. I hope that he has a great interesting fun year at school. Is he a senior this year? or college. Thank him for all of us, for being a great supporter to his mother, I know all this work was a huge load, not only in production, but it had to take a psychic toll. I will never understand why white collar criminals think they are better than the thug types on the street-a strange conceit, since they are both brothers under the skin.

    Michelle: Here’s the thing. The list of super delegates and which PAC gave how much money, to whom are public information (FEC.gov; OpenSecrets.org). But far less people scrutinize the money-to-candidate endorsement link than would have, had the SD’s actually voted. And that’s what really bugs me. Just for saying out loud, ‘I support Barack Obama for President,’ these SD’s were paid hundreds of thousands of dollars. What a racket! As far as we know, a number of these SD’s could have said, ‘I will voice my support but don’t make me vote.’ Who knows which of them actually would have voted with him, with everyone watching. See what I mean?

    My son and I value and appreciate your ongoing messages of support (and your other contributions to this blog, literally and figuratively). ADMINISTRATOR

  8. JJ says:

    They weren’t counting how many of their constituents had voted for Senator Clinton or Senator Obama, but rather how much money was being put into their war chests by the Obama campaign and the Democratic hierarchy.

    Answer this: what becomes of this money??
    Who gets it?? Where is it intended to go?
    Isn’t this out and out bribery??

    JJ: Read my answer to Michelle about the superdelegates (unpledged PLEO’s). The money goes from PAC to PAC. This pays for campaign expenditures for these unpledged party leaders and elected officials. Businesses donate to PAC’s; PAC’s donate to each other. Whoever pays the most money, gets the public support. Public support was going to win the nomination for Obama but no one wanted to go on the record; so he got the SD’s to say they supported him; they got PAC money but never had to vote. Years from now, you will still be able to research the past money transfer but you will have no idea what it was for.

    Sure, it’s bribery. And anyone involved should not be re-elected. But is it illegal?

    What is illegal is coercing pledged delegates from vote binding states to switch their votes before the convention. ADMINISTRATOR

  9. JJ says:

    You finally wrote something I can sink my teeth into—I’m not naive, but my christian background and base knowledge is causing trouble for my brain to wrap around this vile, evil deceit to us, the American tax payers who pay their salary…but guaging from what has happened in the last 18 months?? that’s petty cash to what they are rolling in from their lives of crime.

    JJ: I have no idea what this means but, know this. Whatever I write about that is outside of your grasp, for whatever reason, is within the grasp of those who understand all this and use their superior knowledge to steal your power as a citizen. Over and over again.

    As for rolling in the dough, well, look who funds the candidates and then look at who benefits financially once the candidate is elected and takes office. Follow the money. Nancy Pelosi paid for Obama beginning years ago. Given that the SCOTUS consistently rules, money is speech; she spoke her support for Obama while claiming neutrality. ADMINISTRATOR

  10. [...] A COUP, THROUGH and THROUGH (3 of 3) [...]

  11. DABIG says:

    Fabulous jbjd, just fabulous!
    OT; isn’t this YOUR work?!
    wnd.com

    Take care lady and have a good day tomorrow :)

    DABIG: Hey, nice to see you! Thank you; I am really proud of how this turned out. And yes; that work is mine, copied by the infamous Mr. Williams, who shares my first 2 (two) initials, although he capitalizes his. (Even the title of his work parroted mine.) He claimed publicly, on the radio, he received these documents “anonymously.” And anyone who reads WND, or CFP, or any of the other rags that publish work under his name needs to take notice, there is absolutely no guarantee the work printed under his name, is actually his.

    Adding insult to injury, because he only steals my work but does not bother to learn what he stole, he misstates what the materials mean. Thus, he knowingly expands the knowledge deficit of his audience as to how our political system works; in contrast to the people who used their superior knowledge to steal the 2008 election. This leaves his audience even less well equipped to combat the ‘usurpation’ of the government from the people who created that government.

    You would have to ask him why he has determined to sacrifice the best interests of his audience in this way. ADMINISTRATOR

    P.S. (09.09.10): Thank you for having my back throughout the blogosphere. Protecting the integrity of the work is everything.

  12. TeakWoodKite says:

    TWK wrote, “if this was written in Latin, even Ceaser would get it.”

    Is this original? If so, I will re-use it.
    Yes it is and your welcome to. :)

    It echos back to Roman Senate. You could here two Senators plotting the same plot…

    TWK: Ha! But I will be posting an Epilogue in a couple of days to tie everything up neatly. (Just for example, night/afternoon can mean the same thing depending on which time zone one is referencing.) ADMINISTRATOR

    • TeakWoodKite says:

      “subject to disclosure of ‘public records,’ as if they were government officials.”

      Does any similar law exist in any other state or is Texas unique?
      Second what enforce mechinism of disclosure considering the party is the “person” executing (or not) those laws of disclosure?

      I ask, because in reading the detailed volume of research you did, it appears that there is no law compelling the AG of Texas or any other state official such as Secratary of State or Election official to act on the prima facia fraud. If this were true BO would not be president

      TWK: Okay, let me try to explain. I only know about the provisions of Texas law because I went looking for them for this reason. First, I knew Texas required candidates to be eligible for office to appear on the ballot. (Unless a state has enacted this ballot eligibility law then, putting an ineligible candidate on the ballot is not fraud.) (Even in states with this law, no state law said, anyone had to check. But a SoS could write rules and regulations to carry out the ballot eligibility law which say, s/he will check and refuse ballot entry to anyone found ineligible for office.) Then, I had to find out who signed and submitted to election officials the Certification of Obama’s Nomination, with the help of my Texans. (Red Hank sent the documents, as I recall; but this was a year ago now.) It was Boyd Richie, Chair of the Texas Democratic Party. This was significant to me, because going after a state party chair is much easier than going after Nancy Pelosi, who signed so many other Certifications. But what was particularly intriguing to me, was that the Certification he signed looked just like hers, even using the same notary public in Denver! BUT THE HEADER IN HER FORM HAD BEEN REPLACED WITH A HEADER FROM THE TDP! So, I really wanted to get Mr. Richie for fraud, and began scrutinizing Texas law. That’s how I put together the facts that under Texas law, Mr. Richie can be made to produce documents as if he is a public official. And the Texas Open Records Law allows enforcement by both the AG and private citizens. (Citizens would have to file a court complaint.)

      As for prosecuting criminal election fraud, well, any prosecution by the state AG, by law, is at the AG’s discretion. This is why I hope Texas will create a critical mass that tells AG Abbott, we have your back if you decide to investigate.

      So, citizens in other states would have to look up their laws regarding party officials and documents; and if they want to restrict the conduct of those officials, they could look to Texas law for ideas, in conjunction with work on this blog, which points out, not every provision is in the first place you look. http://jbjd.org/2010/04/12/idioms/ ADMINISTRATOR

  13. KJ says:

    Your facts and analysis have been very enlightening. Thank you for your diligence in exposing the fraud and attempting to prevent the self serving guidance of the hand of fate. Pelosi and Reid put someone that they could manipulate in the Presidency. What other major figures were behind this plot? There must have been financial figures involved who initiated the September “crash” that discredited Mr. McCain with the independents and put Mr. Obama into the White House. The latter did not seem at all surprised by the “crash.” Did Mr. Obama know about it in advance?

    Unfortunately, shenanigans are probably the norm in high level politics. Have you read Phyllis Schlafly’s 1964 book, A Choice Not an Echo, an exposition of the manipulations of the Republican Party’s Presidential Nominations? It would be interesting to see if previous Democratic Party Nominations have been likewise manipulated.

    I hope that you will formalize your research into a book.

    Thank you,
    KJ

    KJ: Welcome, and thank you for appreciating the work. I have not read up on corruption in previous Presidential selection processes. I only got caught up in the issue beginning in 2008.

    And believe me, having worked so hard for so long with no pay, I would gladly put this in book form, if I had any idea, how. ADMINISTRATOR

    • kj says:

      jbjd,

      To get a book published, you would need an agent and a manuscript. Perhaps you could find an author that would be willing to give you some guidance on the publication process.

      Are you familiar with Jack Cashill? He has published many books and is writing on the web in blogs, as guest articles, and for WND. I have a good impression of him from the well researched articles that he has written and his replies to comments (most of which are very intelligent and well written). Perhaps I could try to direct him to your website to contact you.

      A Choice Not an Echo is at Scribd. Written by a Barry Goldwater supporter prior to the election of 1964, the very short book describes the same dirty political tactics but in a different party during an earlier time period. I recommend it to anyone who has read your research.

      kj: Thank you for this information. (FYI, Phyllis Schlafly wrote the book you mention; I cited this work in a previous comment.) I share your impression of Mr. Cashill and have also incorporated some of his work into my articles, with proper attribution. See, for example, http://jbjd.org/2009/07/03/did-bill-ayers-write-barack-obamas-dreams-from-my-father/ ADMINISTRATOR

      • kj says:

        jbjd,

        I contacted Jack Cashill and he was kind enough to reply. He has a phone number on his website: 816-456-1787

        Subject: 2008 Democratic Convention Fraud
        To: jackcashill@yahoo.com
        Date: Friday, September 17, 2010, 10:41 AM

        Mr. Cashill,

        Would you be willing to advise a lawyer blogger known as jbjd (jbjd.org) on book publication? She has extensively researched the “activities” of the Democratic officials at the 2008 Convention and uncovered the party rules and state laws that were broken to get Mr. Obama nominated.

        I believe that the story that she uncovered should be published beyond the web and suggested in a comment that she put her research into a book. Apparently she has never published a book before and doesn’t know where to start.

        I know jbjd through only her work, and the only way that I know to contact her is through her blog.

        Thank you for your efforts to uncover the facts neglected or hidden by others.

        kj

        Re: 2008 Democratic Convention Fraud
        Friday, September 17, 2010 4:50 PM
        From: “jack Cashill”
        To: redacted

        kj

        I would be happy to talk to her, but I would caution her that getting a book published for an unknown author is majorly difficult. Still, sounds interesting.

        Jack

        http://www.cashill.com

        kj: This is so very kind of you to promote my work.

        I will absolutely contact him. (I wonder whether I should send him a sample of my work, in advance of such contact? He publishes articles in several popular ‘news’ sites; perhaps this would be a jumping off point for these materials. And, if interest is as strong as I suspect, well, this might make interesting a publisher more likely.) ADMINISTRATOR

  14. confloyd says:

    jbjd, I was wondering since you recent post on No Quarter if you’ve been getting lots of hits? I was speaking to you one night there and you even said Taylor Marsh had a peak at your stuff.
    I am going to try and persuade a friend of mine to help me write a letter to the Texas Bar Association becasue Richey was/is a lawyer. I wonder if there’s a way to find out if he’s still holds a license? I am unfortunately working 6 days a week so it might take awhile. Anyway I love your work and appreciate it so much. I also wonder what is your take on the republicans? I am really torn, I am a democrat and have always hated those republicans. I heard tonight that the republicans are asking young men and women to become a “green party” candidate in an attempt to split the party….Gee, I am so sick of voter disinfranchizement! Why can’t we have free and fair elections…afterall, this is suppose to be America, a beacon of correct voting methods….Its all so disgusting….thanks

    confloyd: Writing a letter to the Texas bar – assuming you are from Texas – is a start. But you will need to charge that Mr. Richie violated the canons of ethics. First, identify what he did wrong; and then, find the canon that corresponds to that provision. For example, Bob Bauer, currently WH Counsel, represented Obama in Hollister. Based on his conduct in just that case, I argued, he was guilty of “lack of candor to the tribunal.” http://jbjd.org/2009/11/23/counsel-for-dnc-services-corporation-performs-3-card-monte-for-federal-court/

    Do you believe he lied when he Certified Obama was Constitutionally eligible to get on the Texas ballot? If so then, he broke the law. Find the corresponding canon.

    But, I would suggest, in this instance, concentrating on getting AG Abbott to pursue Mr. Richie on your behalf is a more ‘cost-effective’ pursuit. Because in the end, even if successful, you would only achieve disbarment. We want to clean up the election process, right?

    As for my feelings toward R’s, they mimic my feelings toward D’s. ADMINISTRATOR

  15. Al says:

    Hi jbjd,

    Just in to catch up in case you had put up another great post. Read over the other comments shared, and am encouraged by the strong showing of support you and your mission have. Keep it going like a terrific New England Patriots’ drive toward the endzone… under the capable leadership of Tom Brady. Back next week to lurk and learn.

    Al: NoQuarter (in the blogroll) has also begun to cross-post my articles. I get hundreds of comments there, and spend all day answering them. You might take a look at those comments, too. ADMINISTRATOR

  16. [...] the COUP Trilogy (A COUP, THROUGH and THROUGH (1 of 3); (2 of 3); and (3 of 3) I charged that DNC operatives hid hundreds of votes of Clinton pledged delegates from vote binding [...]

  17. [...] grounding in the law.  At the 2008 DNC Services Corporation Presidential Nominating Convention.  (A COUP, THROUGH and THROUGH (3 of 3).)  She admits, she arrived at the convention unaware that as a Clinton pledged delegate from CA, [...]

  18. [...] to Readers:  The “COUP” Series is now complete.  See, A COUP,THROUGH and THROUGH, (3 of 3), and [...]

  19. [...] The “COUP” Series is now complete.  See, A COUP, THROUGH and THROUGH (2 of 3), (3 of 3), and [...]

  20. [...] I have also charged that WND features ‘writers’ whose work products have been outed on several bogs as merely being the intellectual capital stolen from others, which pattern of theft is so blatant even my readers have noticed! DABIG says: September 8, 2010 at 16:57 [...]

  21. [...] produced on my blog.  Here’s a hint:  what information highlighted in COUP (2 of 3) and (3 of 3) led to my conclusion, Obama and the DNC had identified which Clinton pledged delegates were from [...]

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 57 other followers

%d bloggers like this: