I AM CHARLIE HEBDO

January 7, 2015

©2015 jbjd

On September 19, 2012 French satirical magazine Charlie Hebdo published a series of images described by the Christian Science Monitor as “raunchy cartoons of the prophet Muhammad.”  Here, in an interview with al Jazeera, Stephane Charbonnier, editorial director of Charlie Hebdo, explains he timed the images to coincide with current events, namely, press accounts of world-wide demonstrations of “radical Muslims” against the “Fascist American film” (the YouTube video, “Innocence of Muslims”).

The timing of the 2012 images was widely criticized by everyone from the French prime minister to church officials, having come only days after “about 200 (emphasis added) people” demonstrated in front of the U.S. embassy in Paris, against the “Innocence” video, on September 15 (emphasis added). Id. (France’s population is 66 million, of which 5-10% is Muslim. https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/fr.html)

The publication even attracted the attention of Brazilian cartoonist Carlos Latuff, who posted this cartoon of Mr. Charbonnier on the same day. (Note,Charbonnier is wearing the same jersey worn during the al Jazeera interview.)

But, the “Innocence of Muslims” video was not a factor in world de-stabilization on September 11, 2012, when terrorists attacked us in Benghazi, Libya. No; it only became a weapon in global terror after the Benghazi attack, when President Obama conspired with Secretary Clinton to make it one. THE MOHAMMAD VIDEO SLEIGHT-of-HAND.

…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….

My mind is a terrible thing to waste.


THE MOHAMMAD VIDEO SLEIGHT-of-HAND

May 4, 2014

I AM RE-POSTING THIS ARTICLE TODAY, 10.21.15, TO HELP PREPARE YOU FOR MS. CLINTON’S APPEARANCE BEFORE THE HOUSE SELECT COMMITTEE ON BENGHAZI TOMORROW. I ALSO HIGHLY RECOMMEND THIS C-SPAN INTERVIEW WITH SHARYL ATTKISSON, WHO WAS A CBS REPORTER ON 9.11.12. http://www.c-span.org/video/?328725-5/washington-journal-sharyl-attkisson-benghazi-attack&live

©2014 jbjd

On the night of Tuesday, September 11, 2012 al Qaeda affiliated terrorists in Benghazi, Libya began attacking the U.S. diplomatic compound there, and the CIA Annex nearby. By the time they cleared out the next day, they had murdered 4 (four) Americans : J. Christopher Stevens, U.S. Ambassador; Sean Smith, Information Officer, U.S. Foreign Service; and Glen Doherty and Tyrone Woods, both U.S. Navy SEALs.

In the 21 months since the attack, the meme became cemented that an internet video maligning the Islamic Prophet Mohammad had not only triggered this catastrophe, but also ignited similar conflagrations at American Embassies worldwide. But then, the Ben Rhodes email finally arrived.

Now, I think I figured out how what I believe is a false Mohammad-video-qua-villain meme got started; and I think the record establishes when, where, and why.

Time and Place

September 11, 2012 was the 11th anniversary of the bombings on the Twin Towers. Only 4 (four) days earlier, Barack Obama had bragged to delegates at the DNC Convention: “al Qaeda is on the path to defeat; and Osama bin Laden is dead.” The general election, pitting the Democrat incumbent against Republican challenger Governor Mitt Romney, was just 7 (seven) weeks away. The Gallup poll had the candidates in a dead tie.

The seeds of the Mohammad-video-qua-villain meme that sprouted during the ongoing attack in Libya, were planted hours earlier, before an incident involving our Embassy in Cairo, Egypt. Cairo and Benghazi are in the same time zone. Washington, D.C. is 6 (six) hours behind, Eastern Time (ET). Thus, noon local time in Cairo/Benghazi on Tuesday, is 6:00 AM ET on Tuesday here.

Genesis

Sam Becile, aka Nakoula Basseley Nakoula, Nicola Bacily, Robert Bacily, Erwin Salameh, Ahmad Hamdy, Kritbag Difrat and PJ Tobacco, an Egyptian Coptic Christian based in CA, pleaded no contest to federal bank fraud charges in California in 2010 and was ordered to pay more than $790,000 in restitution. He was also sentenced to 21 months in federal prison and ordered not to use computers or the Internet for five years without approval from his probation officer. But in August 2011,  he decided to make a movie.

The low budget film, originally called “Desert Warrier,” was shot on location in CA under a permit obtained by a group called Media for Christ, a nonprofit organization based in Duarte, which advertises its mission as promoting Christian values. The amateur actors Nakoula had recruited off of Craigslist thought they were starring in historical fiction depicting the life of “Master George,” living in Egypt 2,000 years ago. But Nakoula, bothered at Muslim treatment of Christian Copts, had something else in mind. Through heavy-handed  post-production editing,  the amateur filmmaker somehow managed to convert the innocuous ‘Warrier’ into a parody called “Innocence of Muslims,” depicting the Prophet Mohammad, Islam’s founder, as a villainous, homosexual and child-molesting buffoon. All references to Muslims or to the Muslim religion have been obviously re-dubbed. For example, actors could clearly be seen moving their mouths to pronounce the name “Master George” while the soundtrack had them uttering “Mohammad.” All unbeknownst to the original cast.

The 14-minute English language ‘promo’ for “Innocence” was uploaded to YouTube in June; it was translated into Arabic and uploaded several more times thereafter.

Nakoula contacted conservative U.S.-based Egyptian-American Coptic activist Maurice Sadeq and his pal Pastor Terry Jones, the Florida man who became notorious when he began burning Korans in 2010, to promote his film. Jones’ latest foray into ‘spectacle’ was “International Judge Mohammad ‘Mo’ Day,” September 11, 2012, when he planned to conduct a public trial of the Prophet Mohammad and broadcast it live on the internet.  On Thursday, September 6, Sadeq emailed promos of both Nakoula’s film “Innocence” and Jones’ “‘Mo’ Day'” trial, to journalists around the world.

Controversial Cairo television host Sheikh Khaled Abdallah aired clips of the dual Mohammad films on an Islamic-focused television station on Saturday. On Sunday, Grand Mufti Ali Gomaa publicly denounced “the actions undertaken by some extremist Copts who made a film offensive to the Prophet.” (About a 10th of Egypt’s 83 million people are Christians. The rest are Muslim.) Salafist leader Wesam Abdel-Wareth, also the president of Egypt’s ultra-conservative Al-Hekma television channel, called for a protest against the film ‘Mohammad’s trial’ at 5:00 PM on Tuesday, September 11, outside the U.S. Embassy in Cairo.

On Monday, September 10, Egypt’s Salafist Nour Party contacted the U.S. Embassy, in writing, announcing the protest planned for tomorrow. While making clear it wasn’t calling for an open-ended sit-in in front of the embassy, the party nonetheless demanded that the U.S. government ban broadcast of the film and issue an official apology for its offensive content. (Ahmed Khalil, a senior leader of the party, would later tell a reporter, the actions of “certain U.S. citizens” who produced the film served to jeopardize Washington’s relations with the entire Muslim world.)

That same day, Dr. Jones released a YouTube announcing he would screen Nakoula’s anti-Islam trailer tomorrow, September 11, as part of his campaign to turn the anniversary of the terrorist attacks on America into “International Judge Mohammad ‘Mo’ Day.” (Notice, the airing is scheduled after work, at 6:00 PM our time, which is midnight over there.)

On Tuesday, September 11 Muslim Brotherhood spokesman Mahmoud Ghozlan announced the group planned to call for a million-man rally on Friday to register their opposition to the anti-Islam film. He, too, wanted the U.S. Administration to issue a formal apology for the film to the Muslim world, adding that the U.S. government should prosecute the “madmen” whose activities were harming Washington’s relations with Arab and Muslim countries. He also stressed that all demonstrations should remain peaceful in nature. “Protests should be peaceful and avoid any form of vandalism,” Ghozlan asserted. “They should be civilised demonstrations of the Egyptian people’s displeasure with this film.” He went on to warn that “any non-peaceful activity will be exploited by those who hate Islam to defame the image of Egypt and Muslims.”

By noon on September 11, approximately 5 (five) hours before the scheduled protest, Embassy staffers, responding to entreaties from both the Nour Party and the Muslim Brotherhood to disclaim any Mohammad-related offensive speech, posted this on the Embassy’s Twitter account, under the heading “US Embassy condemns religious incitement”:

The Embassy of the United States in Cairo condemns the continuing efforts by misguided individuals to hurt the religious feelings of Muslims — as we condemn efforts to offend believers of all religions. Today, the 11th anniversary of the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks on the United States, Americans are honoring our patriots and those who serve our nation as the fitting response to the enemies of democracy. Respect for religious beliefs is a cornerstone of American democracy. We firmly reject the actions by those who abuse the universal right of free speech to hurt the religious beliefs of others.

Selected sentences from the statement were also tweeted out by embassy staff.

Those tweets could be seen here at 6:00 AM ET.

HuffingtonPost printed a Reuters story on Tuesday about the Cairo protests, referencing both Nakoula’s movie about Mohammad, and the one featuring the Prophet’s trial by Pastor Jones. (I took a picture so as to preserve the posting time(s), just in case. Note, these are local times.)

HuffPo.Cairo

An Egyptian state website carried a statement by Egypt’s Coptic Orthodox church condemning what it said were moves by some Copts living abroad “to finance the production of a film insulting Prophet Mohammad.”

About a 10th of Egypt’s 83 million people are Christians.

It was not immediately clear which film angered protesters.

However, according to the website http://www.standupamerianow.org, the Christian Pastor Terry Jones, who angered Muslims by burning a copy of the Koran, was due to take part in an event on Tuesday called “International Judge Mohammad Day” in Florida in which it would symbolically put the Prophet on trial and play it out live over the Internet.)

The Cairo demonstration of protest against the Mohammad film(s) got underway as scheduled 5 hours later, at 5:00 PM local time, or 11:00 AM ET.

By this time, the promo for “Innocence” first posted on YouTube in June had been up for more than 2 months, and was now accompanied with Arabic translated versions re-posted thereafter. The joint promos of “Innocence” and “‘Mo Day Trial” sent to the press had been broadcast on Egyptian t.v. Prominent figures had called on Egyptians to protest. Yet press accounts describe that out of a total population in Egypt of 83 million, 90% of whom are Muslims; no more than “2,000” people –  “Salafist activists” – were gathered in the Embassy compound. Live news feeds interspersed with pre-recorded images from the scene confirm accounts that the crowd remained peaceful, despite sporadic cries of “Obama, Obama there are still a billion Osamas,” and the occasional firecrackers, sometimes mistaken for bullets. A few flares were lit.

An Ahram Online reporter at the scene described members of the Salafist party could be seen coaxing enthusiastic protesters to come down from atop the Embassy’s walls, while many members of the Egyptian security forces who had been summoned to maintain order in advance of the gathering now sat on the sidewalk, appearing relatively relaxed.

Most of the crowd was gone by 10:00 PM local time, Tuesday, September 11; it was only 4:00 PM here. As the update to the HuffingtonPost article linked above confirms, there were no injuries, among either protesters or Embassy staff. The only property damaged was an American flag, which vandals replaced with a black flag favored by ultraconservatives and militants and labeled with the most basic Islamic profession of faith: “There is no god but God, and Muhammad is his prophet.”

With the demonstration concluded, the Embassy issued more tweets. (IMPORTANT: times (and corresponding dates) in bold are ET and not local time.)

4:47 p.m., 9/11/12. @USEmbassyCairo tweets: “As Spokesperson Nuland said, protestors breached our wall and took down flag. Thanks for your concern and kind wishes.”

5:58-59 p.m., 9/11/12. @USEmbassyCairo tweets in three parts: “1) Thank you for your thoughts and prayers. 2) Of course we condemn breaches of our compound, we’re the ones actually living through this. 3) Sorry, but neither breaches of our compound or angry messages will dissuade us from defending freedom of speech AND criticizing bigotry.”

(At 6:00 PM ET, Stand Up America Now begins a livestream of Jones’ anti-Muslim presentation online. It is midnight, local time.)

Here is the last tweet from the Embassy, sent at 12:30 AM local time, Wednesday, September 12.

6:30 p.m., 9/11/12. @USEmbassyCairo tweets: “This morning’s condemnation (issued before protests began) still stands. As does condemnation of unjustified breach of the Embassy.”

There have been no public statements here about events in Cairo.

Propagation

Meanwhile, all hell was breaking loose in Libya, at the U.S. diplomatic compound in Benghazi, 777 miles away.

The attack against the U.S. diplomatic compound in Benghazi began at 9:30 PM local time, or 3:30 PM ET, around the time the peaceful protest in Cairo was breaking up. Here is a partial timeline of events. (IMPORTANT: times (and corresponding dates) in bold now reflect local time and not ET.)

9.40pm – CIA officials in ‘The Annex’ get a distress call from the consulate saying they are under attack.

10.05pmArmed only with handguns, team of about six CIA security officers leave their base for the public diplomatic mission compound.

10.30pmWith bullets whistling overhead, the CIA team move into the compound after unsuccessfully trying to get heavy weapons and help from local Libyan allies.

U.S. and Libyan guards enter burning building and pull out the body of Sean Smith.

11.10pmA Defense Department drone, which had been on an unrelated mission some distance away, arrived in Benghazi to help officials on the ground gather information.

11.30pmU.S. personnel who had been working or staying at the mission all accounted for, except for Ambassador Stevens.

11.40pm – Driving back to the secure base, the evacuees come under further fire.

12am – The installation itself comes under fire from small arms and rocket-propelled grenades.

12amA CIA security team based in Tripoli, which included two U.S. military officers, lands at Benghazi airport and begins plotting how to locate the missing ambassador.

1am – The patchy attacks on the base begin to die down after 90 minutes of fierce fighting.

The Ambassador, as an unidentified patient, is admitted to Benghazi Medical Center just after 1:00 AM local time (7:00 PM ET), described as unresponsive. He is declared dead 15 minutes later, at 1:15.

At sometime between 3:00-4:00 AM, Libyan security forces locate the body at the hospital. Americans at the annex describe his features. Libyans identify the body as Ambassador Stevens.

No doubt within minutes, everyone from Benghazi to Washington knows.

It is 9:00-10:00 PM, ET.

Around 10:00 PM ET, President Obama called Secretary Clinton.

The conversation is about to pivot to Cairo.

Embassy staffers in Cairo had begun posting the conciliatory yet resolute tweets on their feed 16 hours earlier. Their words had remained visible to anyone monitoring the site, without adverse reaction, all this time. Now, they were taken down.

10:10 p.m. 9/11/12 Politico cites an unnamed administration official saying, “The statement by Embassy Cairo was not cleared by Washington and does not reflect the views of the United States government.”

(The Politico link works, for now; but, just in case…)Clinton.Benghazi.Statement.3

Clinton.Benghazi.Statement.2

According to FactCheck.org, Ms. Clinton issued her first public statement about Benghazi at “about 10:00 PM.” (Emphasis added.) Fortunately, her statement was also posted on MSNBC at precisely 10:32. (Emphasis added.) She mentioned one person had been killed; no doubt, it was Ambassador Stevens. (Clarification 06.22.14: This “person” could also have been Sean Smith, whose body was removed from the Embassy at around 10:30 PM local time on the 11th, which was around 4:30 PM ET (in D.C.) But parsing out blame, she didn’t specifically cite to a film about Mohammad – either Nakoula’s ‘Innocence’ or Jones’ ‘trial’ – or even to any “video.” Instead, she blamed his death on “inflammatory material posted on the Internet.” (Emphasis added.)

Clinton’s statement is linked to the SoS web site, but her words are no longer there. FactCheck provides a link to MSNBC but, it has been pulled from there, too. FactCheck went on to say, the next day, September 12, she spoke to the State Dept. That link leads to another “404.” So, I took a picture of the statements she made on both days, from the FactCheck web site, in case that disappears.

President Obama would not be heard on Benghazi, until the next day. (Statements attributed to him on the 12th can still be accessed through the FactCheck links but I used pictures, anyway.)

IMPORTANT: WHEN YOU READ THE EDITORIAL INTRODUCTIONS FACTCHECK PROVIDES, KEEP IN MIND THIS BENGHAZI TIMELINE WAS FIRST POSTED ON OCTOBER 26, 2012 . 

Clinton.Benghazi.Statement.1

Tuesday, September 11, 2012

Clinton.Benghazi.Statement

Wednesday, September 12, 2012

Obama.Benghazi.Video

These carefully chosen words in public statements from both the President and the Secretary, last night and today – “senseless violence”; “inflammatory material”; “act of terror” – not only conflated the peaceful nature of the demonstration Cairo with the brutal assault in Benghazi but accomplished much more. Almost immediately, this ‘offensive’ material piqued the interest of both national and international media, resulting in the free distribution of Nakoula’s work worldwide.

On Thursday, September 13, protesters returned to the Embassy in Egypt, throwing rocks this time. The Embassy in Yemen was attacked by violent protesters  By Friday, violence had spread to India, Tunisia, Germany, Lebanon, and Sudan.

“Talking Points”

On May 16, 2013, The Swampland (Time) posted a timeline compiled from the 100 pages of e-mails the White House released to the press the previous day. Of course, this was done before Judicial Watch successfully petitioned the court in an FOIA suit to compel release of the documents subpoenas from the House Oversight Committee had thus far failed to procure, which included the now-infamous Ben Rhodes email.

The timeline begins with this entry dated September 14, 2012, both explaining why the drafting of talking points originated with the CIA, and making clear, as far as the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence was concerned, the issue here was not Cairo, but Benghazi. (I have been unable to locate an original written request for talking points, but I found a sort of paraphrasing of what appears to be that request, among these released documents.)

[A]t this morning HPSCI coffee with DCIA, HPSCI members eagerly sought some sort of “white paper” they could use to reply to numerous media requests asking for comments on other inflammatory press articles regarding the Benghazi attacks.

HPSCI has asked for unclassified points immediately that they can use in talking to the media.

(The ‘raw’ documents can be viewed at http://swampland.time.com/2013/05/15/read-newly-released-benghazi-emails/)

It’s 2 days out, and no one else but Clinton and Obama is talking publicly about Cairo, only Benghazi.

At some point, someone chooses Susan Rice, then U.S. Ambassador to the U.N., to represent the Administration on the Sunday talk shows.

The Swampland provides a ‘clean’ version of the talking point edits annotated, in color, which is immeasurably easier to follow. These are well worth perusing. But I just want to point out a couple of prominent points in this alteration proposed by that NSC spokesman dude Tommy – that’s what the 32-year-old likes to be called – Vietor.

benghazi.emails.cairo

Notice, the emphasis is now being shifted to Cairo. But what happened since Tuesday to merit this new found attention there?

Let’s assume for the sake of argument, the comments from President Obama and Secretary Clinton were not intended to steer the conversation from Benghazi to Cairo. That is, let’s pretend on Monday the CIA learned through social media of potential demonstrations ‘tomorrow,’ and alerted the Embassy.  Presumably, they – the CIA – would be closely monitoring the situation the next day. Undoubtedly, they would have read the Embassy’s twitter feed in real time. But remember, the Cairo demonstration on September 11 was quite peaceful, with nary a gun, let alone a mortar, in sight. The CIA – and anyone else monitoring the situation – would have seen this, too. This could explain why the tweets were fine before the President and the Secretary sought to link Cairo with Benghazi, requiring their removal the next day.

There’s also this fact, reflected in the email. Denis McDonough, the President’s Chief of Staff, is running this show. And he, at least, appears to be good at his job. For example, while these ‘CIA talking points’ were created so as to satisfy a request from the Hill; in his appointed ‘talking points’ oversight role, he could have just insisted that these be run by State. But such heavy-handedness could raise suspicion. Instead, he adeptly disguised the order, framing it as mere common sense consideration, in case State, like House Intelligence, had to answer questions from the media, too.

And then, there’s this.

Petraeus.Benghazi.1PNG

Petraeus.Benghazi

No doubt David Petraeus, Director of the CIA was displeased with the current and final iteration of the talking points the agency had created less than 24 hours earlier. No doubt, notwithstanding the alterations imposed by several other ‘eyes’ from throughout the Executive branch, these would serve as the unclassified talking points (“UNCLAS”)  requested by the Legislative branch, specifically Rep. Ruppersberger, HPSCI “Vice Chair.” And, despite Jay Carney’s recent sojourn into obfuscation; no doubt, these same edited ‘CIA talking points’ were delivered to Susan Rice on Saturday, as indicated, for use in her upcoming appearances on the Sunday talk shows the next day, with the Director’s grudging acquiescence, consistent with White House ‘requests’ to “coordinate” the talking  points, with State.

At best, the link between events in Cairo and Benghazi found in the ‘CIA talking points’ is still too tenuous…

The currently available information suggests that the demonstrations in Benghazi were spontaneously inspired by the protests at the U.S. Embassy in Cairo and evolved into a direct assault against the U.S. diplomatic post and subsequently its annex. There are extremists participated in these violent demonstrations.

and, needed more aggressive shoring up if the “inflammatory material posted on the Internet” seed planted by both the President and the Secretary days earlier, was to flourish as the cause, and not the effect of the melees.

Cue Ben Rhodes and the magically appearing email – he has an M.F.A. in Creative Writing from NYU – he wrote on Friday, as the basis of the 4:00 PM ‘preparation’ call to Susan Rice on Saturday, in advance of her appearances on the 5 Sunday shows.

Rhodes.Benghazi.1PNGRhodes.Benghazi.2PNGRhodes.Benghazi.3PNGRhodes.Benghazi.4PNGRhodes.Benghazi.5PNG

Here’s where the word “video” first appears.

The Administration’s forced integration among Cairo and Benghazi and the video was fully achieved with Ms. Rice’s stalwart appearances on those 5 Sunday shows, September 16.

ABC’s “This Week”

But our current best assessment, based on the information that we have at present, is that, in fact, what this began as, it was a spontaneous — not a premeditated — response to what had transpired in Cairo. In Cairo, as you know, a few hours earlier, there was a violent protest that was undertaken in reaction to this very offensive video that was disseminated.

CBS’s “Face the Nation”

The FBI has a lead in this investigation. The information, the best information and the best assessment we have today is that in fact this was not a preplanned, premeditated attack. That what happened initially was that it was a spontaneous reaction to what had just transpired in Cairo as a consequence of the video.

NBC’s “Meet the Press”

Well, let us– let me tell you the– the best information we have at present.  First of all, there’s an FBI investigation which is ongoing.  And we look to that investigation to give us the definitive word as to what transpired.  But putting together the best information that we have available to us today our current assessment is that what happened in Benghazi was in fact initially a spontaneous reaction to what had just transpired hours before in Cairo, almost a copycat of– of the demonstrations against our facility in Cairo, which were prompted, of course, by the video.

CNN’s “State of the Union”

There was a hateful video that was disseminated on the internet. It had nothing to do with the United States government and it’s one that we find disgusting and reprehensible. It’s been offensive to many, many people around the world.

That sparked violence in various parts of the world, including violence directed against western facilities including our embassies and consulates.

“Fox News Sunday”

The FBI has a lead in this investigation. The information, the best information and the best assessment we have today is that in fact this was not a preplanned, premeditated attack. That what happened initially was that it was a spontaneous reaction to what had just transpired in Cairo as a consequence of the video.

Violent demonstrations break out in Indonesia, Pakistan, Afghanistan, Phillippines, Sri Lanka, and Somalia, the next day.

…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….

My mind is a terrible thing to waste.

 

 

Sources:

http://www.gallup.com/poll/150743/obama-romney.aspx

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/13/world/middleeast/us-envoy-to-libya-is-reported-killed.html?_r=0

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/14/us/origins-of-provocative-video-are-shrouded.html

http://www.onthemedia.org/story/236861-religious-references-innocence-muslims-dubbed/

http://gawker.com/5942748/it-makes-me-sick-actress-in-muhammed-movie-says-she-was-deceived-had-no-idea-it-was-about-islam

http://www.csmonitor.com/World/Security-Watch/Backchannels/2012/0912/There-may-be-no-anti-Islamic-movie-at-all

http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2012/09/muhammad-film-consultant-sam-bacile-is-not-israeli-and-not-a-real-name/262290/#.UFDJ-E16XUI.twitter

http://www.onthemedia.org/story/236861-religious-references-innocence-muslims-dubbed/

http://www.buzzfeed.com/rosiegray/inflammatory-anti-muslim-movie-may-not-be-a-real

http://www.csmonitor.com/World/Latest-News-Wires/2012/0913/The-Coptic-Christian-in-California-behind-the-anti-Islamic-film

http://articles.orlandosentinel.com/2012-09-12/news/os-terry-jones-movie-embassy-bombing-20120912_1_florida-pastor-islam-protests

http://www.onislam.net/english/news/middle-east/458983-prophet-film-spurs-egyptian-anger-at-us.html

http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/news-agencies-us-ambassador-to-libya-killed-in-attack-outside-consulate/2012/09/12/665de5fc-fcc4-11e1-a31e-804fccb658f9_story.html

http://www.france24.com/en/20120912-egypt-copts-condemn-anti-islam-film-fear-reprisals-cairo-sadek/

https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/eg.html

http://english.ahram.org.eg/News/52569.aspx

http://abcnews.go.com/WNT/video/september-11-anniversary-protest-cairo-17213328

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/09/11/egypt-protesters-us-embassy_n_1874247.html

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/09/14/morris-sadek-the-maverick_n_1882931.html

http://english.ahram.org.eg/NewsContent/1/0/52567/Egypt/Egypt-army-intervenes-to-pacify-Salafist-protest-a.aspx

http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10000872396390444620104578008922056244096

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2226821/CIA-admits-role-US-consulate-attack-Benghazi.html

http://www.factcheck.org/2012/10/benghazi-timeline/

http://www.nationalreview.com/article/348677/10-pm-phone-call-andrew-c-mccarthy/page/0/1

http://swampland.time.com/2013/05/15/read-newly-released-benghazi-emails/

http://articles.latimes.com/2013/feb/24/news/la-pn-changing-of-the-young-guard-20130224

http://www.judicialwatch.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/04/1919_production-4-17-14.pdf#page=14

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2012/09/heres-a-timeline-of-the-confusing-statements-on-libya-and-egypt/262264/

http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2012/11/16/flashback-what-susan-rice-said-about-benghazi/

http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/09/13/us-protests-idUSBRE88C0J320120913

http://www.cnn.com/2012/09/11/world/meast/egpyt-us-embassy-protests/

 


DEATH in LIBYA

September 12, 2012

©2012 jbjd

It is noon here on the east coast; the news is flooding in on events in Libya and already, the propaganda is saturating the airwaves along predictable partisan lines. And, as usual, unless you take in divergent viewpoints, you will get the story all wrong.

First, especially for those of you who have only gotten your news from blogs; please, listen to Secretary Clinton’s live briefing from the U.S. State Department.

.

Secretary Clinton’s remarks can help to place in their proper perspective those reports and images found on the likes of  Drudge on the one end or The Boston Globe on the other; I was particularly struck by the clarity offered by just a few lines, not necessarily spoken in this order.

When the attack came yesterday, Libyans stood and fought to defend our post, some were wounded. Libyans carried Chris’ body to the hospital and they helped rescue and lead others to safety.

(Just because you see an image of a man being carried by crowds does not mean, they are doing him harm.)

…we must be clear-eyed in our grief. This was an attack by a small and savage group, not the people or the government of Libya.

(According to the CIA, Libya is 97% Muslim, Thus, it is safe to say, most of the embassy attackers and murderers were Muslim. If you agree that in using the word “savage” to describe those Muslim Libyans who attacked and murdered embassy staffers, Ms. Clinton referred only to the conduct of the brutes and not to either their nationality or religion then, please, leave Pamela Geller alone.)


TRUMPED by TRUMP (Updated 04.10.11)

April 4, 2011

©2011 jbjd

(04.10.11):  See update at bottom.

Several well-read blogosphere pundits, among them Ben Smith at Politico, have been soundly outplayed by Donald Trump in the Obama birth certificate round robin; and for that, I have to give “The Donald” his props.

Donald Trump, a salesman in the mold of P.T. Barnum – “There’s a customer born every minute” – is selling himself once again by reprising the guise of a possible Presidential candidate.  Trump’s White House con began 24 years ago:  How The Donald discovered that pretending to run for president can be good for business

This time around, he fixes his faux pitch to head the Executive branch of government, on a new gimmick:  President Obama’s birth certificate.  At first, I scoffed at the tactic of focusing the campaign on producing a document he claims would establish Obama’s Constitutional eligibility.  Because in so doing, he only confirmed a craven compulsion to hog publicity, this time trivializing the otherwise somber issue of election fraud that corrupted the 2008 general election cycle.   In other words, I thought his antics undermined real attempts underway for some time now, to expose actual crimes committed by Mr. Obama and his sales and marketing team, during their bona fide con to occupying the Oval Office.

But even though I have identified and initiated many of these efforts to ‘out’ the crimes of Team Obama which, on first glance, I thought were being trivialized by his campaign; before I finalized the original version of this article, events occurred which caused me to change my mind.  Indeed, after closer inspection I am not at all angry at “The Donald” for potentially gumming up the works.  Because whether he intentioned, by engaging in this latest sales initiative, he not only has exposed some of the intricacies of document identification which have been the subject of many articles posted here on “jbjd” – “Certificate” versus “Certification,” for example, or “issuing authority” – but also simultaneously has ‘outed’ the complicity of the press in giving Obama’s deceit on this front, a blanket pass.  And I have to give props where these are due.

As I have stated all along, the main reason for going after those D’s who committed election fraud viz-a-viz swearing to state election officials in applicable states,which are those states with ballot eligibility laws; that Barack Obama was Constitutionally eligible for POTUS notwithstanding they had failed to ascertain whether he is a NBC, just to get these officials to print his name on the ballot, is this.  Get the attention of Congress.  Because  under the Constitution, the way to get rid of an ineligible President (for criminal acts related to his ineligibility) is through Impeachment, carried out by Congress.  But many legislators have reassured their frantic constituents, in writing, ‘don’t worry, Mr. Obama is eligible for the job.’  So, how do we get them to change their minds?  I anticipated that when confronted with the well-documented possibility, Obama’s eligibility has been a scam all along, (and no longer able to get away with insisting otherwise) the House would introduce Articles of Impeachment so as to enable the Senate to get on with eligibility hearings.

I hoped to trigger this ‘awareness’ through the citizen complaints of election fraud to state A’sG.  But if Trump’s shenanigans effect Impeachment hearings, more power to him.

So, what aspect of his birth certificate campaign will compel sufficient scrutiny of Obama’s election fraud so as to trigger Impeachment?  The fact that the press is giving Trump’s efforts in this regard more scrutiny even before any decision to run; than they did Mr. Obama’s, on his march all the way into the White House. The disparity is striking.  And, as a result, the only pundits who at this point cling to the laughable insistence, Obama has already proven, he is for real; expose themselves as paid shills of the O.D. party.

Take Ben Smith at Politico, whose attempts at satire hardly disguise the acknowledged impossibility of equating an on-line electronic image produced by the person whose name appears on that image; with an official hard copy document produced by the “issuing authority.”

Trump fails to produce birth certificate

Donald Trump made headlines earlier today when he provided what he said was a copy of his birth certificate — but a quick check reveals it’s actually not an official document.

The paper that Trump released says “Jamaica Hospital” on top and lists the date and time of what he says was his birth to “Mr. and Mrs. Fred C. Trump.” The piece of paper has a seal at the bottom.

But after several New York City-based readers contacted POLITICO’s Maggie Haberman, her call to city officials revealed that an actual birth certificate, which is issued by the Department of Health, would have the agency’s seal and also a signature of the city registrar – neither of which the Trump document has. Officials said the city Health Department is the “sole issuing authority” of official birth certificates in New York, and that the document would clearly say so, and “city officials said it’s not an official document.”

It appears instead to be a hospital “certificate of birth,” meaning the piece of paper the hospital gave to his family saying he was born. Such a document typically has the signature of the hospital administrator and the attending physician.

Trump lawyer and advisor Michael Cohen didn’t respond to Haberman’s question about the document.

Trump’s mother, it should be noted, was born in Scotland, which is not part of the United States. His plane is registered in the Bahamas, also a foreign country. This fact pattern — along with the wave of new questions surrounding what he claims is a birth certificate — raises serious doubts about his eligibility to serve as President of the United States.

UPDATE: On a second attempt, Trump produces what appears to be a real one.

After that analysis, why would anyone accept Mr. Smith’s apparent continued belief, the COLB image that is the centerpiece of Obama’s paid political electronic ad campaign is real?  And, by continuing to insist Obama is for real, why does he now definitively expose himself as a paid shill or, in the alternative, a fool?  Because if he admits he is wrong about Obama’s on-line COLB – and, according to the accreditation in the footer, this image is now the property of the DNC Services Corporation – then, he also admits he participated in efforts to throw the 2008 D Presidential primary to a candidate who was Constitutionally ineligible for the job.

Barack Obama’s Constitutional con hinged on the public’s buying into his “Fight the Smears” web site, the focal point of which electronic advertising platform was the photographed mockup of a redacted Hawaiian COLB, conceived and copyrighted in 2007, more than 6 (six) months before the launch date, in June 2008.

If only Hillary Clinton hadn’t been such a strong contender for the D Presidential nomination, the FTS roll-out could have been delayed forever.

Questions as to Barack Obama’s Constitutional eligibility for POTUS likely would have  remained largely unasked and certainly, as a result, unanswered if the 2008 D Presidential nominee wannabe and his accomplices could have confiscated enough pledged delegate votes through the disproportionally weighted and then subsequently co-opted caucuses by February’s Super Tuesday, to make running away with the nomination a(n eventual) fait accompli.  Instead, even after March 4, when both TX and OH voters handily chose her over him, his agents were still fertilizing the false meme to D’s throughout the country, Hillary Clinton had no chance to win the nomination.  Including the press. http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/Vote2008/story?id=4385756&page=1

Like Ben Smith, at Politico.

In 2008, Ben Smith, Carrie Budoff, and Jonathan Martin were named in the byline of an article appearing on March 8, just after Clinton had taken the TX, OH, and RI primaries.  The article featured the individual opinions of each with regard to one of the 3 (three) candidates remaining in both the R and D primaries: Obama, Clinton, and McCain.  But the introduction to these individual pieces is not specifically attributed to any one of the 3 (three) authors.  This unattributed introduction contains the following line:

Sen. Barack Obama will need a new strategy to defend his narrow delegate margin.

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0308/8870.html

Then, in the segment on Hillary Clinton, under just Mr. Smith’s byline, comes this:

But Clinton also faces obstacles, and not just the daunting mathematics of overcoming Obama’s delegate lead.

Id.

Which is it, “narrow delegate margin” or “daunting mathematics of overcoming Obama’s delegate lead”?  Well, let’s look at the figures. Going into the contests she won on March 4, (even) the NYT reported Obama was only 86 pledged delegates ahead of her, or less than .04% of total delegates required at that time to win the nomination!

As I have said before, Obama’s financial backers knew if their agent was to secure the D Presidential nomination, the D primary had to end as early as possible.  Because the more time this flawed candidate remained in the national public eye, the more scrutiny he had to endure.  Including questions as to his Constitutional eligibility for the job.  Until finally, with the primary/caucus season finally ended and no clear winner in sight, the candidate was finally compelled to concede the rising wave of questions as to his Constitutional eligibility for POTUS, and do damage control.

The FTS ad was desperately released in June 2008 to stem the late spring ineligibility tide only because even the cadre of well compensated co-conspirators fixed to rig August’s nominating convention were unwilling to publicly endorse the man if the country still doubted he was Constitutionally eligible for the job.

Gambling that the obvious political ad would sufficiently distract the public from the facts, paid off.  Three years later, people were still claiming Obama’s birth certificate is posted on line.  Plus, when they were questioned by constituents as to Obama’s eligibility, the advertisement provided both ignorant and dishonest politicians alike, with plausible deniability.

But no more.  Because thanks to Donald Trump, everyone, including Ben Smith, now knows, which on-line ‘document’ at least appears to have all of the attributes of a real birth certificate.  And which does not.

(04.10.11):  Update.

My, my, my. It would appear that I was right to come down on the side of the birth certificate showing put on by Mr. Trump.  Cue the ‘MSM’ with  gift wrapped disinformation that confirms, he has hit his mark.

Michael Isikoff, posting today at MSNBC on-line under the moniker “National investigative correspondent,” apparently is among those reporters who continue to assume that anyone still reading the drivel produced under a purported ‘news’ banner like MSNBC; is either too stupid or too gullible, or both, to discern fact from hype.   How else to explain his latest article, Ex-Hawaii official denounces ‘ludicrous’ birther claims in which he now seemingly tries to redeem those same HI election officials who failed miserably in 2008 to parse their validation of Obama’s Constitutional eligibility for POTUS sufficiently so as to assuage genuine concerns the man might not even be a U.S. citizen, let alone natural born.  jbjd, BIRTHER

Especially Dr. Chiyome Fukino, the ex-Director of the HI State Health Department.

Isikoff claims in his article, this time around, Dr. Fukino has clarified, via an admission, that before making those statements in 2008, she had unlawfully accessed the protected privileged confidential records of Barack Obama without first obtaining either a written waiver of liability from Mr. Obama (or his legal representatives) for such otherwise unlawful conduct or, written instructions permitting her to publicly advertise what she had learned from this unlawful breach.

(Mr. Isikoff did not actually refer to this peek at Obama’s birth records as illegal.  But, if what he wrote about Dr. Fukino’s conduct is true then, she did break the law.)

Here are just a couple of ‘facts’ Isikoff reported in this story which those of you regularly reading “jbjd” already know signal his information sounds fishy.

  • He says FactCheck confirmed 2 contemporaneous newspaper birth announcements.  (But see, for example, RUMORS, LIES, AND UNSUBSTANTIATED ‘FACTS’)
  • He says when Dr. Fukino was Director of HI’s Department of Health, before making a public statement as to Obama’s HI birth,  “she wanted to inspect the files — and did so, taking with her the state official in charge of vital records.”  However, for some unknown reason, he fails to provide readers with the name of that state official.
  • He ‘reports’ Dr. Fukino claims she saw “the original so-called “long form” birth certificate — described by Hawaiian officials as a “record of live birth” … located in a bound volume in a file cabinet on the first floor of the state Department of Health.”  The logical inference then, is that this bound Certificate is indexed in some fashion, by number or letter or a combination of both.  And that such index number can be verified at least as to the volume she describes.  However, the only document Isikoff links in his article, is that same COLB which is the centerpiece of the FTS paid political advertisement, the one with the identifying index number prominently redacted. DE-CODER RINGS (1 of 2) and DE-CODER RINGS (2 of 2)
  • He reports that “Joshua Wisch, a spokesman for the Hawaii attorney general’s office, noted that a public index of vital records, available for inspection in a bound volume at the Health Department’s Office of Health Status Monitoring, lists a male child named “Obama II, Barack Hussein” as having been born in the state.”  Again, for some reason, Mr. Wisch fails to provide any identifying information that would aid retrieval.  And Mr. Isikoff fails to point out Mr. Wisch’s omission to his readers.

In sum, while I found very little basis for the descriptor “Investigative” before the moniker “reporter” in Mr. Isikoff’s byline; I was certainly entertained by his failed efforts to discredit the ever rising crescendo of non-believers now challenging the authenticity of anything closely associated with Obama.

Including Mr. Isikoff and MSNBC.

P.S.  Question to Mr. Isikoff:  Given that your article points to the lack of identifying information available in the public domain that would allow people to physically inspect any of the documents mentioned therein; how do you suppose all of those prominent members of the D party who Certified in 2008 that Obama was eligible for office, to state election officials in applicable states, that is, states requiring candidates to be eligible for the office sought in order to get their names printed on the ballot; were able to ascertain in advance, he is a NBC?  (We have asked all of them but they refuse to tell us. See, for example, MEMORANDUM of COMPLAINT of ELECTION FRAUD against LT. GOV. BRIAN E. SCHATZ, ACTING in a NON-GOVERNMENTAL ROLE as CHAIR, DEMOCRATIC PARTY of HAWAII; and REQUEST for INVESTIGATION by the ATTORNEY GENERAL of HAWAII, in ALOHA OBAMA and SHALOM.)


A COUP, THROUGH and THROUGH (3 of 4)

September 6, 2010

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

© 2010 jbjd

A COUP, THROUGH and THROUGH (3 of 4) is the third installment in the 4-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 4); and A COUP, THROUGH and THROUGH (2 of 4).  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 4), 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 4), 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 4), 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 4):

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 four 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.

A COUP, THROUGH and THROUGH (2 of 4)

August 17, 2010

(Note to Readers:  The “COUP” Series is now complete.  See, A COUP, THROUGH and THROUGH, (3 of 4), and EPILOGUE.)

© 2010 jbjd

A COUP, THROUGH and THROUGH (2 of 4) is the second installment in the 4-part series describing the fraud pulled off at the 2008 DNC Services Corporation Presidential Nominating Convention in order to ensure Obama would receive the nomination so that his name would appear next to the D on the general election ballot .  (For the first installment, go to A COUP, THROUGH and THROUGH (1 of 4))

Much of this article consists of comments I posted on blogs in August 2008, which provide historical and retrospective context for the conclusions at which I presently arrive.  PLEASE READ THESE COMMENTS, in order, while imagining you are a part of the Obama campaign’s team of dirty tricksters.  This will help you to understand the way in which events leading up to the convention unfolded, and how and why in the end, they had to pull off a coup in order to secure the nomination.

Part 2:  Lead-up to the Coup

Recall that the motive of the movers and shakers behind candidate Obama, was to get his name on the general election ballot by making him the nominee of the Democratic Party as far as possible in advance of the 2008 DNC Services Corporation Presidential Nominating Convention.  But notwithstanding the nefarious means they had employed throughout the primary and caucus contests, they had nonetheless failed to secure the nomination.  No matter what they tried, they could not undermine Clinton into relinquishing her bid for the nomination.  Why, even now that the primary season was over, the candidate only suspended but did not end her campaign.  So, over the summer Obama’s minions, having failed to secure the nomination based on the number of delegates pledged to him, now set out to corral the hundreds of delegates pledged to her, determined to steal his nomination before the convention.

I only created the “jbjd” blog in late August, 2008, after the convention.  So, in June, after Clinton suspended her bid for the nomination, I continued commenting on other people’s blogs.  For the most part, my focus was fixed on ridding the blogosphere of its misconceptions about specific facts related to the Obama and Clinton narratives, and not on improving people’s understanding of the electoral process.  Because back then, I was as ignorant as to the nuts and bolts of our Constitutional republic as the average citizen 2 (two) years later, remains.  Especially with respect to the role played by our 2 (two) major political parties.

By the first week in August, any knowledge deficit I had suffered regarding the electoral process was rapidly melting away.  (Although as you will see, looking back, some of my comments sound so naive.)

Responding to rumors she might not be formally entered into nomination, Clinton supporters began pushing to ensure her name would appear on the ballot at the convention.  According to DNC rules – by August, I was studying those rules – this would require the signatures of at least 300 pledged delegates, as well as the candidate.  Her pledged delegates from all over the country had been demanding the opportunity to ‘represent’ the candidate the voters elected them to vote for at the convention. And, like the rest of us who had watched that May 31 meeting of the RBC, they were still smarting from the treatment their candidate had received at the hands of other members of her party.  As a result, gathering the 300 signatures would be easy.  But here was another problem.  The Chair could refuse to enter into nomination anyone who failed to demonstrate loyalty to the Democratic Party.   In light of the meme from party officials that Obama’s nomination was already a fait accompli, putting her signature on such a petition could be construed as evidence she was being disloyal to the party, which perceived disloyalty could become a bar to her formal nomination.

Yet, if her name was not formally entered and accepted into nomination then, any votes cast for her from the floor call of the roll would only be recorded as “Present.”

(Please note, from here on in, I will no longer cite to any rules of the DNC.  Because another epiphany that came to me in August was this: the DNC is a private club.  Thus, it can make and break its own rules.  And it set up volumes of rules and by-laws that govern operations, with auspicious sounding titles like “Charter,” “Constitution,” “Model Rules to Delegate Selection Process,” and “Call to the Convention.” But here’s the thing about all these club rules: they can be changed at any time. According to club rules.  Plus, “discretion” is written into everything.  In other words, even if officials of the party engage in conduct that looks like it violates the corporation charter, this might only result from the fact, one objects to the particular way this discretion was used.)

With strong grassroots efforts underway to secure her nomination, on August 10, AP’s Nedra Pickler offered up “Clinton to headline second night of convention,”  subsequently published by both MSNBC and RealClearPolitics, portraying the Clinton and Obama ‘camps’ were negotiating to determine whether her name would formally be entered into nomination.

Clinton told supporters she is seeking a way for her delegates to be heard at the convention and be united after the hard-fought nominating contest.

“Because I know from just what I’m hearing, that there’s incredible pent up desire. And I think that people want to feel like, ‘OK, it’s a catharsis, we’re here, we did it, and then everybody get behind Sen. Obama.’ That is what most people believe is the best way to go,” she said, according to video of the remarks taken by an attendee and posted on YouTube last week.

Obama told reporters Thursday he thought the negotiations with Clinton aides had gone “seamlessly,” but he also rejected the notion that there might be a need for emotional release on the part of some Democrats.

“I don’t think we’re looking for catharsis,” said Obama. “I think what we’re looking for is energy and excitement.” Id.

Ms. Pickler’s account of the Obama and Clinton negotiations contained these lines:

Delegates are not formally pledged to any candidate so Clinton does not need to “release” them to Obama. The rules also say delegates may vote for the candidate of their choice whether or not the name of such candidate was placed in nomination. Id.

As my readers can attest, discussing these issues I struggle  to view the glass as half full rather than half empty.  With this optimistic life view in mind, I refuse to characterize that AP, MSNBC, and RCP reporters and editors intentionally withheld from millions of their readers the material fact, laws in 13 states do bind pledged delegates to the candidate of the voters’ choice. Instead, I will grant, they just didn’t know.

Because on August 10, I still didn’t know. But by August 13, hearing bits and pieces from here and there, I was beginning to put it together.

I heard news reports that a Clinton delegate in CO was being pressured by the state chair of the party to change her support to Obama and had hired a lawyer to deal with the situation!  Now, I looked up DNC model delegate selection rules to determine whether this Clinton pledged delegate could change her mind. DNC rules tell pledged delegates to use their “good conscience” to represent the will of the voters who elected them.  Viewed in this light, the state chair who was pressuring her to change her mind to Obama could be construed to be merely encouraging her to exercise her discretion in a manner consistent with how the voters feel now, and not when she was elected.

Then, I heard something about a Clinton pledged delegate from OR being pressured to change her mind notwithstanding the law in her state required her to stick to her candidate. The law? You mean, the citizens of some states have enacted laws requiring pledged delegates they elect to follow the party’s candidate into the convention?

And that’s when the stark nature of the politics hit me:  since Clinton for whatever reason had suspended her campaign, her delegates were now unprotected.  Obama’s people swooped into the void and were picking them off, like sheep, one by one, on their way to the convention.  I knew if she was to have any chance at the nomination; those of us who supported her candidacy would have to shepherd her pledged delegates through to the nomination.

I posted my thoughts throughout the blogosphere, especially on the PUMA PAC blog, which received hundreds of thousands of hits in the days leading up to the convention.

jbjd on 08.13.08 at 3:05 am

DELEGATE VOTES AT CONVENTION

Taffy,

This is fabulous! Nice work. I know of another state – either WA or OR – because I heard this last night on riverdaughter’s radio show. (I went to riverdaughter’s site to pull up the show but was unable to access her site, while she is away.) Anyway, PUMAs from GA can contact HRC delegates from that state, to make sure they know the law in their state and ask whether the state party has pressured them to switch to BO. If GA HRC delegates have been pressured, PUMAs can propose they could write a “Cease and Desist” letter to the head of the state party, copied to the S of S, advising them to stop extorting HRC pledged delegates to violate state law by committing to switching to BO before the convention or risk being replaced at the convention.

We need to have everyone’s back, not just HRC; because everyone’s back we cover, covers her.

And this, later that day, closer to realizing the full implication of delegate poaching and thinking out loud, what to do.  (You will notice that even way back then, I was eschewing the practice of turning to ‘saviors’ to rescue our cause, in this case, Clinton’s nomination.  Rather, I urged us, instead, to rely on ourselves.)

jbjd on 08.13.08 at 6:03 pm

GRIEVE; THEN RESUME THE MISSION

We need to have the backs of the state delegates so they can back HRC. These are ordinary people, like us. Many of them probably are here for the first time, and have been blindsided by all of this. All I want to do is empower them to stay the course. Otherwise, they will be replaced (in states where this is possible).

Unless we protect our delegates, both pledged and unpledged, that is, super, they cannot protect HRC. And if the national party wasn’t afraid she could still be the nominee, they wouldn’t be advising the state parties – I am certain this is coming from the top – to reign in HRC’s pledged delegates in their states.

The information I am providing for you is actually a step-by-step self-help manual. These are incidents of first impression. That is, nothing like this has ever happened before. So, I figured out a way to address the issue.

First, check to see whether you live in a state where state laws require pledged delegates to follow their candidates, at least through the first round of voting at the convention. (So far, we know that both GA and OR law require this.)

Then, call your state delegates pledged to HRC. These are ordinary people, just like us. Some of them are first-time office holders. They probably feel as blindsided as we do. After all, they are party members, too. The woman in CO hired a lawyer; but no one should have to hire a lawyer to protect herself from attacks by her own party.

Explain you are concerned as a Democrat, as a puma (generic), or as a citizen of the U.S.A. about what is happening to the Democratic party. If they have been pressured, take notes. Tell them you’ll get back to them. Then, come back here, and I will guide you where to go next.

(Please, keep your eyes on the prize.We don’t need a savior. Somebody mentioned Gloria Allred or Alan Dershowitz. These headline grabbers would do more to attract attention to themselves than they could ever provide help to us. Anyway, they cannot do anything for us that we cannot do for ourselves.)

 

Clinton supporters debate merits of roll call vote,” a USA Today report  (published on abcnews.com) on August 13 tells of a continuing divergence of views on both whether Clinton’s name will be called on the roll; and the reasons as to why.

One of those supporters is Allida Black, a George Washington University historian who said she cashed in her retirement savings to finance travel to 14 states for Clinton. Black, a Clinton delegate from Virginia, is helping circulate the nominating petition.

“This is not a spite Obama effort,” she said. “This is for Hillary to get the respect her campaign merits.”  Id.

(Within days, I would confirm Virginia was one of 13 states I identified and dubbed the “vote binding states.”)

Professor Heidi Li Feldman, Georgetown Law, maintained a blog called Heidi Li’s Potpouri, a must-read on the days leading up to the convention.  On August 13, she posted the copy of a nasty letter Obama’s agents had sent to Clinton pledged delegates in GA.  But there was no mention that GA was a vote binding state.  Now, for the first time, I looked up GA law.  And there it was. In fact, the GA law not only requires pledged delegates to support their candidates at the convention but also contains an advisory opinion from the GA AG, supporting the law and explaining its intent.

I posted this information on Heidi Li where, like all other comments, it went into Moderation. Then, I began wondering just how many other states had these vote binding laws.  And whether this same nasty letter that had gone out to Clinton pledged delegates in GA had gone out to her delegates in those other states, too.  Later, I went back to see whether Heidi Li had posted my comment; and whether anyone from GA had responded with a comment containing references to the vote binding law in that state. By now, several comments had come through Moderation.  Mine was the only comment about the binding law in GA; but in the comment posted just above me, someone identifying as a Clinton pledged delegate from NC claimed, that mean-spirited letter that had been sent to Clinton delegates in GA had also been sent to her!

I checked; party delegates are not bound by the results of the NC primary.  But now, I knew Obama was ‘pressuring’ Clinton pledged delegates to switch their votes to him in states throughout the country; and that in some of these states, delegates were bound to the candidate through the laws of their state.

In my mind, agents for Obama enticing Clinton pledged delegates in vote binding states to switch their votes to him before the convention, were breaking the law!

I decided to turn them all in.

On August 14, CNN reported, “Clinton’s name to be put in nomination.”   Pointing to the obvious, they let us know, “Many die-hard Clinton fans have been hoping that her name would appear on the ballot.” Id.

That same day, ABC News’ Kate Snow also reported, “Deal:  Clinton’s Name Will Be Placed in Nomination at Dems Convention.” “Some details are still being worked out, but Clinton’s name will be put into nomination at the Denver convention on Wednesday.” Id. “What also hasn’t been settled yet is who will nominate Clinton and whether she will stand up with the New York delegation when they are called on.” Id. “What has been settled, however, is that after both Clinton and Obama names are placed into nomination there will be a roll call vote.” Id. “What has also been hashed out is that at some point during the convention, Clinton will release her delegates officialy (sic) to Obama and that she will make it very clear that she is voting for Obama, the source said.” Id.

Jeff Zeleny, writing for the NYTimes on August 14, announced “Clinton’s Name Will be Put in Nomination.”

(In June 2005, Mr. Zeleny, then working for the Chicago Tribune, interviewed then newly-elected U.S. Senator Barack Obama.

Obama acknowledges, with no small irony, that he benefits from his race.

If he were white, he once bluntly noted, he would simply be one of nine freshmen senators, almost certainly without a multimillion-dollar book deal and a shred of celebrity. Or would he have been elected at all?

When it comes to race, Obama makes his point–with subtlety (emphasis added by jbjd)

Obama liked the 2005 article so much, he posted this on his now-defunct U.S. Senate web site.  http://obama.senate.gov/news/050626-when_it_comes_to_race_obama_ma/ )

Anyway, on August 14, Mr. Zeleny reported, “Clinton’s name will be placed into nomination at the Democratic National Convention, a symbolic move approved by the Obama campaign in an effort to soothe a lingering rift with Clinton supporters.” Id. “After the state-by-state roll is tallied, Mrs. Clinton is expected to turn over her cache of delegates to Senator Barack Obama.” Id.

Summing up all of these reports from ABC, CNN, and the NYTimes on August 14, the great news was, everyone has agreed, Clinton’s name will formally appear on the ballot for the nomination; there will be an open roll call vote of all state delegations from the floor of the convention; and then she will release her cache of delegates making (most of) them free to vote for Obama and endorse his nomination.

Okay. Now, I could focus entirely on maintaining her delegates up to this ‘open roll call vote of all states’ for the nomination.

That same day, I began to formulate an action plan to turn in Obama’s gang to the A’sG of the vote binding states.  This became the basic set-up of the project.  1)  Find all of those states where the law required pledged delegates to stick to their candidates on the floor of the convention.  2) Obtain the names and contact numbers for A’sG, S’s of S, and state party Chairs in each state.  3) Identify, if applicable, any examples of delegate harassment specific to the state.  4) Compose a letter to the state AG citing the law and the harassment, requesting intervention to stop the illegal conduct.  5) Find names and contact information for Clinton pledged delegates in the state.  6) Identify local and national media outlets.  7) Recruit citizens in the state to carry out the project.

Here’s how it eventually worked. Citizens in the state printed and signed the letters to the AG with their names and addresses.  These were faxed out to state officials, and copied (with or without identifying information) to party Chairs.   Then, we sent blind copies to Clinton pledged delegates – often the only contact information we could obtain was street addresses, so these copies were sent via snail mail – along with this handwritten note near the signature line: “We have your back. PUMA.”  Copies were then distributed to the press.

I launched the project on the PUMA PAC blog.  These are just a sample of the comments I posted on that well-read blog on one day, August 14, beginning in the wee small hours of the morning.

jbjd on 08.14.08 at 1:56 am

BO’S BC ISSUE

The bc issue isn’t ripe until after the convention, in some states, 24 hours after the convention, if he is nominated, and files nomination papers with the individual S’s of S. Blogging on other sites, I explained all this, and directed people to look for filing deadlines in their states, because the challenge window is based on these filing deadlines. Anyway, since no one can do anything about this bc situation until after the convention, please, focus on what needs to be done to secure support for HRC at the convention. And this means supporting the delegates, pledged and unpledged, to support her. This is what I am trying to do right now.

And more explanation in the ongoing formulation of my plan.

jbjd on 08.14.08 at 3:56 am

HARASSING STATE DELEGATES – PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE,

read this and then, help me do something about it! Fellow PUMAs, BO’s emissaries from Chicago are now pressuring state delegates, too; and Chairman Dean is doing nothing to stop them. Here is an example of what they are doing in GA.
http://heidilipotpourri.blogspot.com/2008/08/bearing-witness.html

Remember, GA is one of those states that requires their pledged delegates to stick by their candidates through the 2nd ballot at the convention. We have to help these pledged delegates from this not-too-subtle extortion! Who is from GA? I will check in before noon. Please, we need to contact GA pledged delegates. You can get their names from the GA S of S. Once we help delegates in one state, all of this harassment will stop. But that state has to have a state law requiring pledged delegates to stick by their candidate; and evidence of harassment.

I stressed the importance of carrying out this project (as opposed to other ‘PROWLs,’ the name for the ‘action projects’ posted daily at the top of the blog).

jbjd on 08.14.08 at 10:28 am

Texas Tigress,

Nothing sent to the head of the state party will accomplish the goal of protecting the pledged delegates inasmuch as 1) you are asking the oppressor to stop oppressing; and 2) the pledge delegate in jeopardy does not know you have her back. We have to get to the actual delegate; and she has to be willing to report the illegal conduct either through a “Cease and Desist” letter to the state party; or notice to the S of S. And everything needs to be copied to the press.

Coercing pledged delegates to violate state law is really big. (This is different from the scenario described in Heidi Li’s link, wherein Chicago is pressuring these delegates to disclose their votes in advance.) Like, if this is a DNC directed campaign to get the state parties to exert this pressure to switch allegiances, on pledged delegates who are required by law to support their candidates, we’re talking RICO-type conspiracy. This is FBI territory.

CALLING ALL GEORGIANS! (U.S.A., not former Soviet Union)

Throughout the day, I posted pointers, like this.

jbjd on 08.14.08 at 10:50 am

HOW TO IDENTIFY PLEDGED DELEGATES IN YOUR STATE

The state party is required to provide the identities of party delegates to the S of S. Call their office; these people work for you. Do not bother calling the state party; this is not worth the runaround you might get, and your resulting frustration.

Note: Pledged delegates are not super delegates.

And this.

jbjd on 08.14.08 at 12:18 pm

That’s why I want people in their states to contact their pledged delegates. We do not want HRC’s pledged delegates to feel they are hanging in the wind; and we have no idea how much support HRC is able to provide to them, given this present repressive situation.

If GA is getting these conference call calls then, other states must be, too. But what makes this worse in GA is that, by law, pledged delegates must support their candidates through at least the first round at the convention. That’s why I am so desperately looking for GA pumas.

I posted information on other potential vote binding states, including CA.

jbjd on 08.14.08 at 1:18 pm

CALIFORNIA PUMAS

STOPPING DELEGATE HARASSMENT

*********************************************
6201. …
(e) The California primary election is a “binding” primary.
Accordingly, delegate and alternate positions shall be allocated so
as to fairly reflect the expressed presidential or uncommitted status
of the primary voters in each district. Therefore, the national
convention delegates elected at the district level shall be allocated
in proportion to the percentage of the primary vote won in that
district by each preference…
http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/waisgate?WAISdocID=64820815600+3+0+0&WAISaction=retrieve
**********************************************

Before I can tell you what to do in CA, I need to know what that word “binding” means here. Call the S of S elections division (916) 657-2166.

I sought favors; can someone please contact Jeff Zeleny?

jbjd on 08.14.08 at 1:52 pm

CAN SOMEONE DO THIS FOR ME? I AM SO BUSY ON THIS BLOG TODAY I HAVEN’T EVEN … YET!

Re-visit the DNC Call to Convention and find the page about the difference between “nomination” and roll call. Then, contact Jeff Zeleny – I find him to be pretty fair – and make sure he understands the difference between being officially placed into nomination and having your name ‘nominated’ from the floor, through which process any votes cast for you would only be recorded as “present.”

And posted more pointers on the project.

jbjd on 08.14.08 at 3:50 pm

STATE DELEGATE HARASSMENT,
Implications of Letters from BO Representatives to State Pledged Delegates

As most of you already know, the principle that state pledged delegates should support their candidates at the convention is embodied in a document called
DNC Delegate Selection Rules. http://www.coloradodems.org/docs/2008DSPFinal.pdf
However, in certain states, including OR and GA, pledged delegates must, as a matter of state law, follow their candidates into the convention. So, for example, urging a pledged delegate to change her support, before the convention, is not only encouraging her to violate the spirit of the DNC Rules but also to break state law.

Any questions?

As I continued my research, I alerted readers to other vote binding states.

jbjd on 08.14.08 at 5:24 pm

PLEASE CALIFORNIA PUMAS I admire your spirit but after I looked up your laws for you, I came up with this question, which no one is answering for me: what does that word “binding” mean here? You can call the S of S elections division (916) 657-2166. This will determine how best to proceed in your state. (Each state is different, which is why I have been asking you to identify your state. ) Also, I need people in each state to SPEAK to a pledged delegate to confirm HRC pledged delegates in each state are being contacted by BO’s people in Chicago and asked – under various ploys – to identify their candidates.

http://heidilipotpourri.blogspot.com/2008/08/bearing-witness.html

I cannot help you with the letter from your state until I have the information I asked for, from your state. As they say in the movies, “Help me help you.”

Still trying to confirm CA.

jbjd on 08.14.08 at 5:44 pm

STOPPING STATE PLEDGED DELEGATE HARASSMENT

CA PUMAS and others

I need you to do these 2 things. (I cannot tell you what to do next until I have these answers. Remember, I am trying to help out in all 50 states. I am swamped.)

1. Find out from the S of S – I gave you her # – what the word “pledged” means in the law I cited. Of course we would assume that, pledged means pledged. But I want to make sure what this means; ask specifically whether pledged delegates must vote for their candidate on the first vote at the convention. And take notes. (I have been asking for this since yesterday.)

2. Call some pledged delegates and find out whether they received a letter from BO’s people in Chicago, like the one on Heidi Li’s site.
http://heidilipotpourri.blogspot.com/2008/08/bearing-witness.html

Then come back here and tell me what you found out.

And at the end of that very long day, a plea for HELP!

jbjd on 08.14.08 at 11:54 pm

HELP HELP HELP HELP HELP

Turns out, there are states out there that require pledged delegates to support their candidates through the first vote at the convention. So far, there’s OR; and GA; and IN. I need PUMAs organized by state. Now. But I cannot organize you – I am too busy researching your laws and writing state-specific letter. GA will go out, first. Tomorrow. Because the AG of GA has already written an advisory opinion explaining the intent of the law; and supporting the law. I anticipate the AG will not take too kindly to people from Chicago encouraging pledged delegates in his state to break the law.

Citizens of GA pouring through thousands of comments posted on the blog each day, eventually found my comments and responded with their emails.  In this way, we assembled a team I began referring to as ‘my Georgians’ to carry out the project in just that one state. At the same time I was researching the laws, obtaining the contact information, and writing the letter to the AG for the next state.  And communicating the state vote binding project to readers of other people’s blogs, and recruiting citizens of each state to get out the letters I had written, state by state.

The next day, August 15, Ann Kornblut reported  in the Washington Post these variations on the plans for the open roll call of all states on the floor of the convention that had been reported just the previous day.

Clinton to Get Roll-Call Vote at Nominating Convention

How, exactly, the roll call will work remains an open question, advisers on both sides said. After having her name entered into nomination, Clinton could then ask her delegates to support Obama, bypassing the long process of reading names aloud. But several advisers said they think there will be some kind of roll call, which could begin as early as Tuesday night of the convention. (emphasis added by jbjd)

Hmmm…

My letter to the AG of GA went out that same day.  Copies were distributed to the SoS, the Chair of the state D party, and hundreds of state and national media outlets.

August 15, 2008

Thurbert E. Baker, Attorney General

Office of the Attorney General
40 Capitol Square, SW
Atlanta, GA 30334

VIA  FAX: 404. 657.8733

SUBJECT:   Solicitation to Violate O.C.G.A. § 21-2-196 (2008)

Dear Attorney General Baker:

Here in Georgia, pledged delegates selected as the result of votes cast for Senator Clinton in the Presidential primary election are legally required to vote for her during first-round balloting at the party’s nominating convention.  OPINIONS OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL appended to the above-cited law explains, “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.” But in what can at best be interpreted as an overzealous advocacy on behalf of Senator Obama, in states throughout the country, including Georgia, proponents for his nomination have bombarded her delegates with subtle and not-so-subtle pressures to commit to switching support to him, before the convention.  Or, failing that, they replace the Clinton-pledged delegate with one loyal to Obama.  (See examples below.  Note that while the first link shows the copy of a letter Senator Obama’s campaign sent to pledged delegates in Georgia, they distributed this same letter to delegates in all states, including states which, like Georgia,mandate pledged delegates to follow their candidates into the convention.)  In Georgia, encouraging delegates entrusted with representing the political preference of Clinton voters, to pledge their support before the convention to Obama, solicits these delegates to break the law.

As a concerned citizen of Georgia, I am bringing this matter to your immediate attention anticipating that you will take appropriate action to ensure from now on, campaigning in this state related to the upcoming Democratic National Convention is consistent with Georgia laws.

Sincerely,

References: “Bearing Witness” (posting of letter from Khalil Thompson, Obama for America, Chicago) http://heidilipotpourri.blogspot.com/2008/08/bearing-witness.html

Clinton supporters protesting removal of delegate at Democratic National Convention http://www.whas11.com/news/local/stories/WHAS11_POLITICS_080814_CLINTONOBAMA.486a4d97.html

“Explain, Dems tell Clinton delegate” (article on state party efforts to discipline Colorado delegate for Clinton for refusing to switch to Obama)

http://www.denverpost.com/search/ci_10170139

Copy: Karen C. Handel, Secretary of State

VIA FAX: 404.651.9531

Jane V. Kidd, Chairwoman, Georgia Democratic  Party                                                                                            jane@georgiademocrat.org

Readers began posting states in which stories of irregularities regarding Clinton pledged delegates had been in the news.

KENDALBLUE on 08.15.08 at 12:23 am

jbjd @@@@@@@@@
a link about Kentucky delegate..clintonrules posted it.

http://clintondems.com/2008/08/clinton-supporters-protesting-removal-of-delegate-at-democratic-national-convention/

On the 15th, PA Governor Ed Rendell (D) appeared with Neil Cavuto on FOX and misinformed the viewing audience, there is no such thing as a “pledged” delegate.

jbjd 08.15.08 at 7:07 pm

ED RENDELL
(PA IS AN UNBOUND COMMONWEALTH)

You are going to have to reach PA delegates who might not know Ed Rendell does not know what he is talking about. He’s saying there’s no such thing as pledged delegates within the Democratic Party. And, since PA delegates are unbound, they don’t know that in other states, including CA (we think), delegates are bound. So they might believe all delegates will switch their votes to BO, meaning even if they wanted to vote for HRC, their votes won’t matter.

Another state confirmed.

jbjd 08.15.08 at 7:08 pm

OREGON OREGON OREGON OREGON OREGON OREGON
(you’re next)

Anyone from Oregon – Do a shoutout to other Oregonians. Have them email you and put their addresses into a group marked OR. I am going to have you send this to me. I am writing your state letter now!

Oregon is next!

And another.

jbjd 08.15.08 at 9:29 pm

HELP HELP HELP HELP HELP HELP HELP HELP HELP HELP
**********************************************

Does anyone have any information on the OR HRC delegate being pressed to switch to BO? I can’t find this; but I heard this on the radio. Anyway, I really want to include a link in the OR letter which, otherwise, is ready to go. WHERE ARE MY OREGONIANS? I am dancing as fast as I can.

IN is next.

Here is a wonderful wrap-up from one of my Georgians of the maiden effort in the vote binding project.

antifish 08.15.08 at 10:04 pm

OK Pumas, let’s all cheer up.

Just to let you know, in concert with our fellow Puma, jbjd, we GA pumas fought back against delegate intimidation today. Jbjd wrote a wonderful letter in legalese which was faxed to our Att Gen and Sec of State. We sent copies through snail mail to all pledged delegates letting them know we have their back. I know jbjd is eager to help each of you in your states, but please realize that she must carefully research the laws of each state in order to craft the letter properly. Let’s all be patient as we fight the strong-arming and intimidation of delegates.

A reminder we are on the side of the law.

jbjd 08.15.08 at 11:02 pm

ABSOLUTELY SOMEONE SHOULD BE SETTING UP A GENERIC PROWL TO ALL STATE DELEGATES, UNPLEDGED OR PLEDGED

I am only working on pledged delegates because they are being harassed to change their minds. And I wanted to start in states whose laws require pledged delegates to follow their candidates into convention because anyone who coerces a person to break the law needs to be stopped.

CA, Nancy Pelosi’s home state is confirmed, and gearing up to go!

jbjd 08.15.08 at 11:25 pm

REMEMBER NOVEMBER

Yes; send emails to me so I can set up a folder for CA. I will have the letter ready to go out as soon as I get your email addresses. And does anyone in CA know of any additional stories of delegate harassment? I only have one example. (I also use examples from other states, though; it would be shortsighted to assume the types of harassment out there occur in only one state.)

Still trying to reach the delegates before they head out for Denver.

jbjd 08.16.08 at 12:52 am

COPIES OF THE AG LETTERS NEED TO GO TO ALL STATE DELEGATES WHO AT THIS POINT MIGHT HAVE NO IDEA WHAT’S GOING ON AND WHO NEED TO KNOW WHAT’S GOING ON BEFORE THEY LEAVE FOR DENVER

Re-read my earlier comments today about Ed Rendell’s statement on t.v. The interviewer asked whether HRC winning was now possible. ‘Delegates can vote for anyone they want. The last time they were pledged was back in 1980 at the Carter Kennedy convention.’

State delegates can be reached by snail mail. It would be great if we could get these letters out tomorrow.

On the 16th, I posted the epiphany that Obama and the DNC are rigging the nomination.

jbjd 08.16.08 at 1:16 pm

***********************************************
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
I THINK I FIGURED OUT HOW BO AND THE DNC ARE RIGGING THE NOMINATION

I posted yesterday that I saw Ed Rendell on Neil Cavuto, rejecting NC’s proposition that HRC could still win if enough delegates changed their minds, with this statement: ‘That’s not going to happen; delegates can vote for anyone they want and they will vote for BO. We haven’t had a robot rule since the 1980 Kennedy Carter convention.’ After seeing this on t.v., I began posting here to remind you PUMAs that some states require, by law, that “pledged” delegates must vote for their candidate at least through the first round of voting at the convention. I warned you the DNC was engaging in a campaign of misinformation aimed at state delegates, who may or may not know what is the law in their states, to get them to think voting for HRC would be useless. I urged you to get word to state delegates, hold your vote.

Today, I started thinking, what if “robot rule” was actually a term of art? So, I looked it up. And, sure enough, it is.
http://cassandra2004.blogspot.com/2008/02/open-convention-ted-kennedy-1980-dnc.html

And then it hit me. BO is spending this week spreading misinformation to get state delegates – not the supers – to change their votes. We have to try to stop him. Normally, this ’shepherding’ of delegates is done by the candidate; BO has been in touch with delegates in each state. But HRC cannot do this now. So we have to.

This needs to be a prowl.

On August 17, I ‘blew the whistle’ on the true nature of “pledged” delegates and the Democratic Party.

jbjd on 08.17.08 at 5:49 pm

THIS IS THE MOST IMPORTANT COMMENT I HAVE EVER WRITTEN OR WILL EVER WRITE ON THIS BLOG… PLEASE REFER OTHERS TO THIS COMMENT THROUGHOUT THE DAY, IN SUBSEQUENT COMMENTS… I AM BUSY WRITING YOUR STATE-SPECIFIC LETTERS TO THE ATTORNEYS GENERAL, TO BE COPIED TO OUR DEAR STATE DELEGATES PLEDGED TO HRC, TO LET THEM KNOW, WE HAVE THEIR BACKS…

***************************************************************************
DECONSTRUCTING DEMOCRACY AND THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY

My Dear Fellow PUMAs,

If you are going crazy trying to figure out what’s happening with the Democratic Party, join the club. I’m not kidding. Join the club. Because it just hit me, the way to understand this Democratic nominating process is to think of The Democratic Party as what it is – a club. And the only thing that makes this club so special is that it was able to get permission from each of the 50 states to collect campaign contributions and put the names of the candidates it wants to hold office onto the state’s election ballot. That’s it. That’s all there is. Let me explain.

According to Party – or rather, club rules, presidential candidates are chosen at the club’s nominating convention. Afterward, the club submits the name of its candidate for POTUS to the appropriate state official in each state – usually the Secretary of State – as part of an application to get onto the state’s general election ballot, in compliance with that state’s laws. In fact, states only allow the candidate for POTUS chosen by a “major political party” to submit ballot papers so late in the game because club rules and by-laws require their candidates to be chosen at a “nominating convention.”

The club determines who will be its candidate for POTUS on the general election ballot through a vote at the convention by people it calls “delegates,” which delegates obtained that status through an allocation process set by the club. That is, the club places the names of its proposed candidates on state ballots in the primary and caucus elections and then, in exchange for receiving a specific number of votes in that process, the candidates are assigned a delegate to vote for them at the convention. Most state delegates are given a special status, called “pledged.” According to club rules, when these pledged delegates cast their votes at the convention, they should use their best judgment to represent the wishes of the voters based on whose votes they were elected. Historically, by counting these delegates pledged to each candidate, the club has usually been able to predict which of its candidates will end up with the nomination at the end of the primary and caucus process, since one candidate usually garners enough pledged delegates to surpass the number the club set as the requirement at the convention. But not this year. Neither club candidate – BO or HRC – was assigned enough delegates through the primary and caucus process to secure the nomination at the convention. Luckily, the club had in place rules whereby this deficit in delegates could be made up by special delegates commonly referred to as super delegates who get to cast their votes for either candidate at the convention.

The Democratic Party set up volumes of rules and by-laws that govern all these operations, with auspicious sounding titles like “Charter,” “Constitution,” “Model Rules to Delegate Selection Process,” and “Call to the Convention.” But here’s the thing about all these club rules: they can be changed at any time. According to club rules. So, if like me, you have read club rules and believe, as I do, that members of the club have not played fair throughout this presidential nominating process, am I saying there is nothing you can do about it? Hardly.

Remember what I said in the beginning: the state only lets the club get onto official state ballots as long as they follow state rules. And unlike club rules, when states make rules, they’re called laws. (TO BE CONTINUED…)
©jbjd

And my eventual reply to the alert about delegate harassment in KY.

jbjd on 08.18.08 at 10:22 pm

OMG…OMG…OMG…OMG…OMG…OMG…OMG…OMG…OMG

KENTUCKY IS A PLEDGED STATE! I AM ON IT… LOOK FOR IT…

And the follow-up.

jbjd on 08.19.08 at 12:55 am

caracal carrie

I am all over KY – I have the law but this letter is unique since the club actually replaced a delegate pledged to HRC with one pledged to BO, ostensibly to satisfy an affirmative action requirement in either DNC or state rules – and NH. CA, GA, IN, and OR are done. When you wake up, look for the posting.

Now I was put in touch with Ricki Lieberman, in NY, a muckity-muck in the Democratic Party everyone else seemed to know about but me.  Here is how she was described on Huffington Post a few weeks earlier, in July.

Also a former Clinton “Hillraiser” (meaning she raised more than $100,000 for the campaign), Lieberman is keeping her own private hope alive with a daily email blast to supporters, entitled “Electability Watch,” which features a cascade of negative articles and other items about Obama as a means to argue that superdelegates should change their minds in Denver and crown Clinton the nominee instead.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/07/16/clinton-distances-herself_n_113094.html

Ricki  printed my work on vote binding states in her now-infamous newsletter, “Electability Watch.”

I was also put in touch with a reporter from the LATimes.  I did my best to inspire him to write a story, describing the unlawful attempts made by agents acting for Obama to coerce delegates pledged to Clinton in vote binding states to switch their votes to him.  He just wasn’t interested.

On the morning of August 21, 2008, this article on Georgia Politics Unfiltered proved, our campaign to stop pledged delegate harassment had worked in GA.  (Perhaps not coincidentally, GA was the only state in which I had been able to recruit a team of volunteers to carry out all of the steps of the project, including sending a copy of the AG’s letter to the delegates along with a note saying, “We have your back.”)

Thursday, August 21, 2008

Attorney General Tells GA Delegates They Can’t Switch Their Vote At The Convention

I’ve confirmed with two members of the state’s Democratic National Convention delegation that Attorney General Thurbert Baker sent them a letter informing them that they could not switch their vote to another presidential candidate if they are a pledged delegate to someone else.

Two delegates pledged to New York Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton, Shannon Marietta of Dougherty County and Cheryl Williams of Gwinnett County, both said they received a letter from the Attorney General stating that they could not switch their vote until Sen. Clinton released them or she received less than 35% of the vote during the roll call vote.

The Attorney General’s letter cites an relatively unknown section of Georgia’s presidential preference primary law that states Any person selected as a delegate or delegate alternate to such national convention shall file a qualification oath with the Secretary of State pledging support at the convention to the candidate of their political party or body for the office of President of the United States for whom they are selected to support. The oath shall state that the delegate or delegate alternate affirms to support such candidate until the candidate is either nominated by such convention or receives less than 35 percent of the votes for nomination by such convention during any balloting, or until the candidate releases the delegates from such pledge. No delegate shall be required to vote for such candidate after two convention nominating ballots have been completed. [Source: Official Code of Georgia Annotated 21-2-196]

Both Clinton delegates said they planned on voting for New York’s junior Senator on the first ballot anyway.

I’m currently working on getting a copy of the letter.

http://georgiaunfiltered.blogspot.com/2008/08/attorney-general-tells-ga-delegates.html

Ricki also contacted Alegre’s Corner, another PUMA blog, to post the work on her site, and recruit citizens from these states to download their state letters and send to the identified recipients.  That night, Alegre’s Corner had joined the vote binding state campaign.

http://alegrescorner.soapblox.net/diary/717/

By August 23, everyone is listening.

jbjd on 08.23.08 at 11:37 am

OMG OMG OMG OMG OMG OMG OMG OMG OMG OMG OMG OMG

Howard Wolfson, staunch HRC supporter and formerly with her campaign, has been a pundit for FOX since some time after HRC suspended her campaign. He just announced (remote) to Cavuto, some states have laws that require delegates to vote for HRC.
Cavuto: ‘You mean even if HRC releases her delegates, they still have to vote for her?’
Wolfson: ‘Yes.’

WOW! WOW! WOW! As most of you know, finding these laws and getting out the word is what I have been working on! Isn’t this great news?

The next day, August 24, the day before the opening day of the convention, CNN, HuffingtonPost, FOXNews, and NYDailyNews, among others, attributing different sources, announced for the first time that Clinton would release her delegates at a luncheon on Wednesday afternoon, and not after the first open call of the roll of all delegates from all states on the floor of the convention.  They also announced the DNC had lifted all sanctions against FL and MI – Clinton won both states, neither one of which is a vote binding state – giving them full votes at the convention.

Still left intact since its announcement 10 days earlier, on August 14th, was the plan to hold an open roll call vote of all delegates from all states on the floor of the convention.

But would that plan still be in place at the start of the convention?

(Next:  Part 3:  The Coup at the Convention)

the DNC is a private club; they make their own rules. You don’t need a lawyer to protest their breaking the rules; these are their rules. They wrote in the use of discretion throughout their charter. This means, even if they engage in conduct that looks to you like it is against their rules, this doesn’t mean it is against the rules. It means you don’t like the way they exercised their discretion.

A COUP, THROUGH and THROUGH (1 of 4)

August 10, 2010

(Note to Readers:  The “COUP” Series is now complete.  See, A COUP, THROUGH and THROUGH (2 of 4), (3 of 4), and EPILOGUE.)

© 2010 jbjd

Introduction

The Democratic National Committee Services Corporation, disguised as the DNC, installed Barack Obama into the Office of President of the United States of America by committing massive election fraud that played out uniquely during each of these 3 (three) phases of the 2008 Presidential election cycle in relation to the company’s August 2008 Presidential Nominating Convention: 1) pre-Convention; 2) Convention; and 3) post-Convention. The fraud committed both before and after the Convention has been dissected in several articles previously posted here on the “jbjd” blog.

This  four-part series entitled, “A Coup, Through and Through” analyzes the fraud pulled off at the Convention.

Keep in mind, not all fraud is created equal. While the record establishes the D’s committed fraud throughout the general election cycle, my work has remained focused almost exclusively only on that fraudulent conduct which both 1) violated laws explicitly or implicitly proscribing such conduct; and 2) arguably altered the outcome of the 2008 Presidential (Electors) election.

Part 1: Prologue to Fraud

Before Barack Obama could be installed in the Oval Office, interested parties both within and outside of the Democratic National Committee Services Corporation had to ensure he would win the DNC Presidential nomination so that his name could appear next to the D on the general election ballot.  Because, as I have previously opined, while Electors voting in December may elect anyone they want; I could not imagine they would dare to elect a President whose name hadn’t even appeared on the November ballot. NEVER LESS THAN A TREASON (1 of 2) and (2 of 2). (Note:  I recently learned the D’s have been pressing state legislatures to pass the National Popular Vote Initiative (“NPVI”).  If this thing gets through, I believe even a candidate who fails to qualify to get on the ballot in one or more states can still be elected.) (See, HOW ADOPTING the “NATIONAL POPULAR VOTED INITIATIVE” CAN STEAL an ELECTION ‘BY HOOK’ and ‘BY CROOK’.)

But given the several problems they knew were inherent to his candidacy, any one of which, if exposed, could prove fatal to his political aspirations, winning the nomination would require that they clinch the nomination as far as possible in advance of the DNC convention. In this way, they could limit the scope of the public examination of the candidate apt to occur in a protracted battle for the nomination.

They were willing to do whatever it took to accumulate enough pledged delegates during the primary and caucus contests to reach the magic number that long before the convention would ensure at that time, he would be handed the nomination. Manufacture chaos at the caucuses and capitalize on the confusion created? Check. Collude with A.C.O.R.N.? Check. Censor critics with charges of racism? Check. Cultivate a compliant press willing to conceal stories unflattering to either the candidate’s character or, their own complicit conduct on the road to his nomination? Check and check.

When the numbers for Hillary Clinton, his toughest competition in the race for the nomination, placed these two in a virtual dead heat with 3 (three) more months until the primary and caucus contests ended and 5 (five) months until the convention, co-opt the free will of the voters by spreading the meme she has already lost the nomination? Check. Co-opt the free will of the candidate by calling her a sore loser if she doesn’t drop out of the race now and throw her support(ers) to him, for the good of the party? Check.

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.

But even factoring in the votes of those super delegates already expressing support for Obama, with less than 3 (three) months to go before the convention he still had not achieved the superiority in delegates that would secure his nomination. And the delay had taken its costly and anticipated toll.

Despite their best efforts to control the narrative, one of those ‘problems fatal to his political aspirations,’ known as Rev. Jeremiah Wright, had leaked out. And from the time the public learned of the long close relationship between the candidate and his avowed “spiritual adviser,” he had already lost more than 10 (ten) points in the polls.

To understand what they did next, you need to know the difference between being designated a Clinton pledged delegate and an Obama pledged delegate.

Attorney Bob Bauer, then counsel to the DNC and now WH Counsel, explains the delegate selection process to the federal court in DiMaio v. DNC, a case not material to the fraud laid out here.

The DNC is the governing body of the Democratic Party of the United States and is responsible for promulgating delegate selection rules for the 2008 Democratic National Convention…The nominee of the Democratic Party for President of the United States is chosen by the delegates to the Democratic National Convention held in each presidential election year. The National Convention is organized and run by an arm of the DNC. The delegates from each state are chosen through a process adopted by the state’s Democratic Party. For each presidential election starting in 1976, the DNC has established formal Delegate Selection Rules to govern the selection, in each state, of its delegates to the National Convention. These rules require each State Democratic Party to develop a written delegate selection plan and to submit that plan to the DNC’s Rules and Bylaws Committee (“DNC RBC”) for review and approval. The delegate selection process in each state involves two basic functions: (1) the allocation of delegate positions among presidential candidates, i.e., how many delegates from that state will go to the Convention pledged to each candidate; and (2) the selection of the actual individuals to fill those positions, i.e., the selection of the people who will attend the Convention as delegates and alternates. Generally, state parties use either a primary or a caucus/convention system. In a primary system, the state party uses the state-government run or a party-run primary election to allocate delegate positions, and then a party-run meeting (caucus) to fill those positions. In a caucus system, the state party uses a series of party-run meetings — caucuses — both to allocate delegate positions and to select the persons to fill those positions. A caucus/convention system does not involve use of the state’s electoral machinery. Of the 56 states and territories that sent delegates to the 2008 Democratic National Convention, 20 used party run caucus/convention systems.

http://www-lvs13.net.ohio-state.edu/electionlaw/litigation/documents/Dimaio-Brief-9-19-08.pdf

In short, the numbers of votes a candidate receives in a party primary or caucus contest translates into so many pledged delegates awarded, based on the vote:delegate ratio concocted in advance by the party. When the contest is over, the state party meets to select which party faithful, pledging fealty to one candidate or the other, will fill the slot of pledged delegate for his or her preferred candidate and then cast a vote for that candidate at the national nominating convention.

On May 31, the DNC RBC met to finalize their response to the dilemma presented by FL and MI. Legislatures in both states had moved up their primaries in contradiction to the calendar set by the DNC. As punishment, the DNC indicated it would not seat delegates from either state at the convention. (Accused of “pandering” to Iowa, Obama had pulled his name off the ballot in MI. Clinton did not. She won heavily in both states but, the DNC and their allies in the press not only did not count those pledged delegate numbers in her totals, they did not even credit her with receiving the number of popular votes.) DNC Chairman Howard Dean had said in March, he expected delegates were “eventually going to be seated in Florida and Michigan as soon as we get an agreement between the candidates on how to do that.”  In the meantime, each state party had allocated pledged delegates based on the actual popular vote for the candidates whose names appeared on the ballot, including those delegates who filled the slots represented by the ‘name’ “Uncommitted,” a category that received 40% of the MI vote.

The Committee,  whose members were hand-picked by Chairman Dean, heard from both of the states involved, and from representatives of both of the candidates, and then made their decision.  In FL, where both candidates appeared on the ballot, the Committee awarded delegates in accordance with the popular vote, but gave each delegate only half a vote at the convention. But desperate to bolster Obama’s sagging numbers, his allies on the Committee adopted this solution for MI. First, all delegates would be seated at the convention but with only half a vote each. Second, all votes that had been cast for “Uncommitted” were now deemed to have been cast for Obama; and delegates assigned based on votes cast for “Uncommitted” would be reassigned to delegates loyal to him. Third, 4 (four) of those pledged delegates already assigned to Clinton as the result of votes cast for her; would be taken away and re-gifted to him.

In the eyes of many stalwart Democrats, by second-guessing the voters’ intent in this way, the RBC had abandoned the core principle of “fair reflection” enshrined in the DNC Charter. Harold Ickes, an adviser to the Clinton campaign, pulled no punches. “This motion will hijack, hijack, remove four delegates won by Hillary Clinton and most importantly reflect the preferences of 600,000 Michigan voters. This body of 30 individuals has decided that they are going to substitute their judgment for 600,000 voters.”

On June 3, the primary / caucus season ended.  Clinton suspended but did not end her campaign.

Once upon a time – March 28, 2008, to be exact – Chairman Dean announced to the press he thought it would be “nice” if by “July 1,” all of the  superdelegates weighed in with the name of the candidate they would support, implicitly acknowledging even back then that neither candidate would secure the requisite number of pledged delegates throughout the remainder of the primary / caucus contests  to ensure the August nomination.  Top Democrat wants party contest decided by July 1. But on June 4, the day after the primaries ended and just 5 (five) days after the RBC issued its controversial shuffling of the MI delegate deck to sweeten Obama’s hand, the following headlines appeared in the L.A. Times:  “BREAKING NEWS:  Dean, Pelosi, Reid set Friday deadline for superdelegates’ choices, move to force end to Clinton bid

According to the article, DNC Chairman Dean; Nancy Pelosi, (Speaker of the U.S. House of Representatives and 3rd in line of Presidential succession, acting in a civilian capacity as Chair of the 2008 DNC Services Corporation Presidential Nominating Convention); and Senator Harry Reid jointly issued a “carefully worded statement” which was widely interpreted as “a clear step to force an end to the effort by Clinton,” telling superdelegates to make their candidate choices known “tomorrow.”

Tomorrow? Whatever happened to “by July 1”?  Why this sudden (and rather petulant) rush to memorialize Obama’s coronation?  Probably because those pesky problems with his candidacy were about to derail his political aspirations.

For months now, rumors had been swirling that Obama was not Constitutionally eligible for the job.  Specifically, he is not a “natural born” citizen, one of three requirements listed in Article II, section 1 of the U.S. Constitution.  Then Communications Director Robert Gibbs (now WH Press Secretary) had come up with a seemingly brilliant on-line advertising campaign under the banner, “Fight the Smears,” designed to counter these mounting speculations.  The focal point of the ad campaign was an image of a mock-up “Certification of Live Birth,”  listing Obama’s place of birth as “Hawaii.”  (It was even appropriately redacted so as to give the appearance of protecting the candidate’s privacy.)  Ad copy accompanying the image reassured the public, this proves he is a “native” citizen.  At the bottom of the page, in the footer, appeared the sort of attribution required by the U.S. Code for all political advertising expenditures:  “PAID FOR BY BARACK OBAMA.”

Designing a political ad campaign such as “Fight the Smears” ‘to be used only in case of emergency’ was one thing; but actually rolling it out was another.  Because its success gambled on the truth of this one contemptuous statement:  American voters are too stupid to know that there’s a difference between “natural born”  and “native”; and that “Fight the Smears” is nothing more than a PAID POLITICAL ADVERTISEMENT, anyway.  Understandably, the Obama team held back on the nuclear “Fight the Smears” option for as long as it could.

Yet hard as everyone tried, Clinton just would not abandon the nomination. And why should she? Examining the traditional rubrics of success – total number of pledged delegates; popular votes; likelihood to beat the Republican in the general election – the two contenders remained within the ‘margin of error.’ Besides, neither Clinton nor Obama had amassed the requisite number of pledged delegates to wrap up the nomination on the first call of the roll on the floor of the convention.

The Obama campaign launched “Fight the Smears” on June 12.

Up until this point, the ‘dirty tricks’ carried out by operatives tied to the D Corporation to lie and cheat their man’s way into the D nomination were only sinister and underhanded.  But, with the exception of the allocation of votes:delegates in Texas, technically, they were within the letter of the law. (LULAC v. Texas Democratic Party.) All that changed in the summer months leading up to the convention, when Obama and his champions and converts, now clawing at straws, conspired to literally steal the nomination.

The state parties had specifically chosen delegates to fill the number of slots reserved for Clinton or Obama as the result of votes cast for her or him in the primary or caucus contest, based on their loyalty to either one candidate or the other. But DNC rules only insist that pledged delegates voting at the national convention “in all good conscience reflect the sentiments of those who elected them.” (Emphasis added by jbjd.) http://s3.amazonaws.com/apache.3cdn.net/fb3fa279c88bf1094b_qom6bei0o.pdf, p. 23. In other words, under DNC rules, there is no such thing as a “pledged” delegate. (At one time, the DNC did have such a “robot rule,” which required delegates pledged to a candidate to vote for that candidate at the convention. But they eliminated that rule in 1982.)

Which was a good thing for Obama emissaries who now fanned out across the country and harassed her delegates, in person and by wire, to get them to agree to switch their votes to him, before the convention.

Twisting arms to ‘turn’ pledged delegates before the convention was not only not prohibited under DNC rules but also, in 37 (thirty-seven) states, it wasn’t against the law. As for the other 13 (thirteen) states, well, that was quite a different story.

See, voters in 13 states  – AZ, GA, IN, KY, MA, NH, NM, OH, OK, OR, TN, VA, and the delegate mother lode, CA – had enacted this special legislation. ‘In our state, pledged means PLEDGED. This means, delegates pledged to a candidate as the result of votes cast in the political party’s primary or caucus election; must vote for the candidate voters elected them to represent, at the party’s nominating convention.’ (I ‘discovered’ these states in the summer of 2008 and named them “vote binding states.”) In short, extorting Clinton pledged delegates in these 13 vote binding states to commit to switching their votes to Obama before the convention, was against the law.

And they knew what they were doing was illegal.

Because as Mr. Bauer wrote in his submission to the federal court in DiMaio; “[DNC] rules require each State Democratic Party to develop a written delegate selection plan and to submit that plan to the DNC’s Rules and Bylaws Committee (“DNC RBC”) for review and approval.” Id. (The DNC RBC is the same outfit that on May 31 had shuffled the candidate’s delegate count in a blatantly partisan attempt to improve Obama’s numbers and move him closer to the nomination.) And, contained in those DNC delegate selection rules is provision 2.2: 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. (Emphasis added by jbjd.)

http://s3.amazonaws.com/apache.3cdn.net/e824f455b24c7782dc_jjm6ib44l.pdf

Being “related to the delegate selection process,” the state law that required pledged delegates to vote at the convention for the candidate voters elected them to represent was included in the delegate selection plan each of these 13 states had submitted to and was subsequently approved by the DNC RBC.  In other words, Obama’s agents who began harassing Clinton pledged delegates from vote binding states to switch their votes to him, months before the convention, undoubtedly knew they were breaking the law.

But desperate times called for desperate measures.

(Next:  Part 2:  Lead-up to the Coup)


%d bloggers like this: