Bernie Sanders has vowed to take his fight to the Democratic Convention, saying he has no plans to endorse Hillary Clinton when the nomination is still up for grabs.
Contrary to false media reports that suggests Sanders cannot contest the Democratic convention, Hillary Clinton has less than 2,383 pledged delegates, meaning that Sanders does have a chance to contest the convention and win the nomination.
Thus, Bernie Sanders has recently confirmed his desire to continue, as stated by Time:
Bernie Sanders Vows to Continue ‘Political Revolution’ in New York
But that did not stop the Vermont Senator from defiantly promising to continue the political revolution in a town hall on Thursday, giving a glimpse into his possible future role in the Democratic Party in which he campaigns for progressive candidates across the country.
Speaking with the cadence and conviction of a viable candidate in midtown Manhattan, Sanders again did not concede the nomination…and did not endorse his opponent.
Here’s the video of Bernie’s address from last week and there’s also no concession; only a reassurance to millions that his campaign is alive and well.
Therefore, progressive media and pundits should refrain from their gleeful calls to end Bernie’s campaign. Vermont’s Senator is taking his political revolution to Philadelphia and he’ll continue to run for the presidency.
Why would he stop?
Would you end your presidential campaign if your opponent faced on ongoing FBI criminal investigation?
Bernie Sanders, his campaign, and millions of supporters throughout the nation and world must wait until July 25th, knowing that the FBI will likely disclose its findings of Clinton’s email investigation before the Democratic convention. POLITICO confirmed the other day that Clinton’s email investigation is a “criminal investigation,” as stated by Federal Judge Emmet Sullivan:
Judge links Clinton aide’s immunity to ‘criminal investigation’
A former information technology aide to Hillary Clinton received immunity from the Justice Department in connection with a criminal investigation, a federal judge confirmed Tuesday.
Bryan Pagliano, a computer expert who worked at the State Department while Clinton was secretary of state and was also paid privately by her, was previously reported to have received immunity in connection with statements he gave to the FBI about Clinton’s private server set-up.
However, there had been no explicit confirmation that the investigation—which Clinton has repeatedly referred to as a “security review”—is actually a criminal probe.
“The privacy interests at stake are high because the government’s criminal investigation through which Mr. Pagliano received limited immunity is ongoing and confidential,” U.S. District Court Judge Emmet Sullivan wrote in an order issued Tuesday.
When a U.S. District Court Judge confirms your opponent faces a “criminal” investigation, there’s no reason to concede or leave a race for the presidency. Furthermore, Judge Sullivan clearly stated “The privacy interests at stake are high because the government’s criminal investigation through which Mr. Pagliano received limited immunity is ongoing and confidential.”
Clinton’s “security review” days are over, especially since the White House also confirmed the criminal investigation.
But there’s no chance of Clinton facing legal consequences, right?
If you know the answer to this question, then tell the world next year’s winner of the Super Bowl. Also, explain how Clinton circumvents repercussions from the following NBC article titled Hillary Clinton Emails Held Info Beyond Top Secret:
Emails from Hillary Clinton’s home server contained information classified at levels higher than previously known, including a level meant to protect some of the most sensitive U.S. intelligence, according to a document obtained by NBC News.
In a letter to lawmakers, the intelligence community’s internal watchdog says some of Clinton’s emails contained information classified Top Secret/Special Access Program, a secrecy designation that includes some of the most closely held U.S. intelligence matters.
Two American intelligence officials tell NBC News these are not the same two emails from Clinton’s server that have long been reported as containing information deemed Top Secret…
While she was secretary of state from 2009 to 2013, Clinton conducted government business over private email. The arrangement was particularly unusual because the email system relied not on Yahoo or Google but her own server, which she kept in her home in Westchester County, N.Y.
The act of transferring Special Access Program intelligence from secure government networks onto an unsecure private server correlates directly to the Espionage Act. I explain why Clinton’s Special Access Program intelligence will lead to a Bernie Sanders presidency in the following YouTube segment.
Finally, nothing proves both election fraud and a Bernie Sanders presidency better than Clinton’s treatment of donors. As stated by CNN last week, Secretary of State Clinton put a Chicago commodities trader on an advisory board regarding nuclear strategy:
Washington (CNN) A major political donor to the Clintons and other top Democrats was selected by then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton to serve on a key State Department intelligence board in 2011, despite having no clear background in the area, according to emails released this week…
In July 2011, Fernando was appointed to a seat on the International Security Advisory Board (ISAB), a panel filled with top-level foreign policy advisers and security experts. Former Democratic presidential candidate Gary Hart chairs the current panel, which includes retired generals, the former chairman of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission and other high-ranking national security experts…
As a member of the top-level group, Fernando was granted a Top Secret security clearance and given access to highly sensitive information.
Fernando, professional State Department staff noted, seemed an awkward selection for the group and spurred concern when an ABC News reporter inquired about him in 2011…
An aide, Wade Boese, replied that night that Clinton chief of staff Cheryl Mills had added Fernando’s name to the list of appointees approved by Clinton. “The true answer is that S staff (Cheryl Mills) added him. The board’s membership preceded me. Raj was not on the list sent to S; he was added at their insistence,” Boese wrote. “S” refers to Clinton, ABC News reported.
Not only did this commodities trader have no background in nuclear strategy, but he’s also a Democratic super delegate.
Still believe the system didn’t favor Clinton?
From private servers to advisory boards with donors and super delegates, Clinton’s candidacy is unique in American history. I recently challenged Nate Cohn and Harry Enten (polling experts who failed to predict the rise of Bernie or Trump) on the data pertaining to presidential candidates and FBI criminal investigations. I asked if they could crunch the numbers, and come up with some kind of analysis on whether or not Clinton will become president, based on prior candidates facing FBI criminal probes.
Something tells me that most observers have conveniently ignored the fact Bernie’s challenger risks serious legal consequences. One can only imagine what pundits would say about Bernie Sanders if he were in Clinton’s position. Therefore, Bernie has every reason to stay in the race, especially since nobody has ever become nominee alongside an FBI criminal probe.
With Bernie Sanders, there’s no risk of scandal or FBI investigations. The talk of Bernie leaving the race must stop, especially since Clinton’s emails will dominate the media very soon. Bernie Sanders just made it official, and after the FBI discloses its findings, expect Bernie Sanders to become Democratic Nominee. The “data driven” analysis on candidates with ongoing FBI criminal investigations says Bernie Sanders is still the front-runner in 2016.
Latest posts by Sean Adl-Tabatabai (see all)
- Prince Andrew Child Sex Victim: “Evil People” Are Trying to Kill Me - December 12, 2019
- Dianne Feinstein: ‘There Is NO Deep State’ - December 12, 2019
- Liberal California City Considers Banning People Feeding Homeless - December 12, 2019