A COUP, THROUGH and THROUGH: EPILOGUE

September 15, 2010

In the COUP Trilogy (A COUP, THROUGH and THROUGH (1 of 4); (2 of 4); and (3 of 4) I charged that DNC operatives hid hundreds of votes of Clinton pledged delegates from vote binding states at the 2008 DNC Services Corporation Nominating Convention so as to ensure Obama’s foregone nomination would be based only on votes cast by delegates pledged to either candidate, and not on votes cast by unpledged PLEO’s, or Party Leaders and Elected Officials, the so-called super delegates. Further, I alleged the DNC instituted this maneuver so as to allow these PLEO’s to avoid scrutiny they had sold their votes to the higher bidder. One week later, I want to clarify these 2 (two) points; and to add another.

First, do not let the technicalities and background narratives of these pieces obscure this damning fact: members of the Democratic Party conspired to violate the election laws passed in 13 (thirteen) states.

Second, although my conclusions as to the role the PLEO’s played in this coup was new, the information that they were bought, was not. Nor was any of the other information I posted regarding the advance planning implemented by senior D’s to ensure Obama would be the Presidential nominee, including configuring a skewed votes-per-delegate formula. Or the ongoing machinations to ensure his nomination, such as re-allocating pledged delegates from one candidate to another, by the RBC; and compelling ongoing negotiations regarding not only how and when, but also whether to hold what should have been an automatic open roll call vote of all states on the floor of the convention, consistent with past practice. What was new was the way in which I wove all of these together into cause and effect. And just because the facts fit my final conclusion, this does not mean, I am right although, naturally, I believe I am.

Most importantly, the reason I wrote the COUP Trilogy telling you how election laws were broken – and these vote binding laws are all codified in the section of state laws marked “Election” – was so that you could do something about it.

I admit and have admitted several times, I was ignorant as to how our political system worked in real life, before the 2008 election cycle. But in the past two years, I have worked tirelessly to de-construct the election process and then, to explain what I learned to my fellow citizens, in terms lay people can understand. That’s one of the reasons I provided so much background information in this series, especially when the charges I was making could have been accomplished in much fewer lines. For example, I detailed how I stumbled onto vote binding states and frantically worked to get the word out. Why? Because this information did not make the ‘news.’ In other words, you would not know what I did unless I told you. This is precisely why I told you. I hoped that chronicling the serendipitous nature of my ‘discoveries,’ I would help you to realize, by overseeing the electoral process, asking questions whenever you think something isn’t quite right until you are satisfied you understand what went wrong, you, too, can come to know as much about our political system as those who ‘did wrong.’

In other instances, I pointed you to exactly what went wrong, even if the conduct was not illegal. For example, I included numerous links which led to more information spelling out that PLEO’s voiced public support for the D candidate who donated more money to his or her PAC’s (Political Action Committees).

But figuring out what went wrong or being told what went wrong points to the inherent shortcoming of all of my work. That is, just knowing what went wrong is not enough; now, you have to fix it.

For some people, this means educating others, or correcting mistakes where possible, especially when it comes to members of the press, who, at least when reporting on the voting obligation of pledged delegates at the convention, keep getting it wrong. Some people will have to do more.

For example, our state officials must be compelled to enforce existing laws. Even with admittedly flawed election laws, zealous law enforcement alone could have prevented the fraud that pervaded the 2008 elections. This means doing more than just writing or calling when both prove ineffective to get the official’s attention. People will be required to visit state offices to advance their concerns, accompanied by friends, family, and colleagues, arm-in-arm with the press. In states with holes in existing laws, for example, those states with no vote binding laws, we need to enact these laws. Votes in our state should mean something, whether cast in a general election or in a Presidential preference primary. Otherwise, we should refuse to conduct the primary for the political party. After all, we enacted the laws whose language allowed these private clubs to insinuate themselves into our governmental process in the first place. Only we have the power to write them out.

We also have to ‘call out’ those officials who did us wrong.

I wonder; DID ANYONE CONTACT THE OFFICIALS WHOSE CONVENTION VOTES WERE FOR SALE TO SAY, SHAME ON YOU! If their conduct in this regard now persuades you to vote for someone else, how will they know? If you don’t support the votes cast by your elected officials; or if they won’t enforce vote binding laws in your state (or even investigate charges against a party official who placed the name of a candidate on the ballot notwithstanding he was ineligible for the job) then, announce to these officials you intend not to re-elect them into office. And don’t. But also make sure the candidates now getting your votes know that you expect these unresolved issues to be addressed, as the price of being elected into office.

In the week since the COUP series ran, I received comments that point to another weak link in the omnibus citizen advocacy required to fix our political system: partisanship.

Citizen activism has to be non-partisan. After all, vote binding laws apply to everyone in the state, and they were passed by legislators elected by all of the voters. These are LAWS, not R laws, or D laws, or laws only for Unenrolled’s. (I wonder whether any of you, being R’s, ignored the paid off super delegates because the elected officials who bought off the D’s were D’s themselves? Being D’s, did you ignore the bribery of your public officials for this same reason?) Elected officials swear allegiance to the state and federal Constitutions, and not to the major political parties. Regardless of party affiliation, they need to take these oaths seriously. And regardless of party we, the sovereign citizens, have to make them.

I am not saying bipartisanship alone guarantees a job well done. In TX, the law says, only candidates eligible for office can get their names printed on the state ballot. Boyd Richie, Chair of the Texas Democratic Party (“TDP”) swore to state election officials Obama was eligible to be President but refuses to disclose the documentary basis for his Certification. Based in part on these facts, hundreds of citizens of TX – R’s and D’s and I’s – filed well-documented complaints with AG Greg Abbot (R-TX) charging Mr. Richie had committed election fraud. So far, Mr. Abbott refuses to act on these citizen complaints.

On the other hand, you saw that AG Baker (D-GA), on receiving well-documented complaints from citizens of GA – again, D’s and R’s and I’s – that Obama (D-IL) was violating vote binding laws, did something. IMMEDIATELY. (I wrote the letters but these had to be sent by real citizens of GA, with real addresses in the state. After all, AG Baker works for them.)

We have to begin thinking about the electoral process as non-partisan. Not just because as we have seen in the case of the rampant election fraud perpetrated by members of the D Party; the results have impacted us all. But because if one party sees we are impotent to moderate the conduct of the other, then, it correctly extrapolates our impotence across the political spectrum.

Certainly, we citizens are much stronger acting together to address the flaws in our political system than we are acting as agents for interested political parties.

Finally, I want to emphasize the underlying themes of all of the work I produce with respect to how our political system plays out in real life. Citizenship in our Constitutional Republic is not a spectator sport; and no weapon staves off tyranny more effectively than an educated electorate. Bottom line, I spelled out for you in the COUP series the unlawful fraud that occurred at the 2008 DNC Convention, effecting the outcome of the 2008 Presidential election, entrusting you to ‘run’ with this information. Otherwise, I predict, in the 2012 campaign cycle, your most cynical aspirations will come true. That is, nothing will change. (Except, of course, next time, you will understand perfectly everything that goes wrong.)

EPILOGUE to A COUP, THROUGH and THROUGH

In the COUP Trilogy (A COUP, THROUGH and THROUGH (1 of 3); (2 of 3); and (3 of 3) I charged that DNC operatives hid hundreds of votes of Clinton pledged delegates from vote binding states at the 2008 DNC Services Corporation Nominating Convention so as to ensure Obama’s foregone nomination would be based only on votes cast by delegates pledged to either candidate, and not on votes cast by unpledged PLEO’s, or Party Leaders and Elected Officials, the so-called super delegates.  Further, I alleged the DNC instituted this maneuver so as to allow these PLEO’s to avoid scrutiny they had sold their votes to the higher bidder.  In retrospect, I want to clarify these 2 (two) points; and to end with another.

First, I hope that the technicalities and background narratives of these pieces did not obscure the main point:  members of the Democratic Party conspired to violate election laws passed in 13 (thirteen) states.

Second, my conclusions as to the role the PLEO’s played in this coup was new but the information they were bought, was not.  Nor was any of the other information I posted regarding the planning implemented to ensure Obama would be the Presidential nominee, including configuring a skewed votes-per-delegate formulas; or re-allocating pledged delegates from one candidate to another, by the RBC; or conducting ongoing negotiations regarding not only how and when, but also whether to hold what should have been an automatic open roll call vote of all states on the floor of the convention, consistent with past practice.  What was new was my putting this all together.  And just because the facts fit my final conclusion, this does not mean, I am right.  Naturally, I believe I am.

So, why did I provide so much background information when the charges I was making could have been accomplished in much fewer lines?  For example, I included a lot of background information, like how I stumbled onto vote binding states and frantically worked to get the word out, which information did not make the ‘news.’ That is, you would not know what I did unless I told you. So, I told you.  Because I hope you realize you, too, can figure out something is wrong; and then do something about it.  Whenever you think something isn’t quite right, follow up.  Research.  Ask questions on the blogs.  Until you are satisfied.  And then, educate others, or correct mistakes where necessary, especially when it comes to members of the press, who, at least in reporting on the votes of pledged delegates from vote binding states, keep getting it wrong.

More importantly, now that you know election laws were broken, this calls for redress.

I admit and have admitted several times, I was ignorant as to how our political system worked in real life, before the 2008 election cycle.  But in the past two years, I have worked tirelessly to de-construct the election process so that lay people could understand how it works, and where it doesn’t, take action to shore it up. And that citizen activism must be non-partisan.  After all, vote binding laws apply to everyone in the state, and they were passed by legislators elected by all voters in the state.  These are LAWS, not R laws, or D laws, or laws only for Unenrolled’s.  Public officials swear allegiance to the state and federal Constitutions, and not to the major political parties.

In TX, the law says, only candidates eligible for office can get their names printed on the state ballot.  Boyd Richie, Chair of the TDP swore to state election officials Obama was eligible to be President but refuses to disclose the documentary basis for his Certification.  Based on these facts, hundreds of citizens of TX filed well-documented complaints with AG Greg Abbot (D-TX) charging Mr. Richie had committed election fraud.  Mr. Abbott won’t touch these citizen complaints. But you saw that AG Baker, D-GA, on receiving well-documented complaints from citizens of GA that Obama was violating vote binding laws, did something.  IMMEDIATELY.  (I wrote the letters but they had to be sent by real citizens of GA, with real addresses in the state. After all, AG Baker works for them.) We have to begin thinking about the electoral process as non-partisan.  Because the results affect us all. And we have to compel our state officials to enforce the law, regardless of party.  That’s our job.

I also included numerous links in this series which would lead to more links, which would spell out that PLEO’s voiced public support for the D candidate who donated more money to his or her campaigns.  Did people follow these links and investigate their elected officials?  Did they share this information with families, friends, and colleagues?  DID THEY CONTACT THE OFFICIAL TO SAY, SHAME ON YOU!  Will they now vote for someone else?  Don’t like the way an elected official votes; or that, s/he will not pursue charges against the D’s who placed the name of a candidate on the ballot notwithstanding he was ineligible for the job; or won’t enforce vote binding laws in your state, announce you intend not to re-elect that person into office.  And then, don’t.

And if states have no such vote binding laws, we need to enact them.  Votes in our state should mean something, whether they are cast in a general election or in a primary for a political party.  Otherwise, we should refuse to conduct the primary for the political party.  After all, we enacted the laws whose language allowed these private clubs to insinuate themselves into our governmental process in the first place.  And we can write them out.


Good citizenship in our Constitutional Republic is not a spectator sport.  And an educated electorate is tyranny’s worst enemy.


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: