Why Sanders Continues Campaigning

Eric Zuesse

There are two realistic scenarios for Bernie Sanders to win the U.S. Presidency.

One depends upon his receiving the Democratic Party’s nomination. The other doesn’t, but both are realistic.

HE STILL MIGHT WIN THE DEMOCRATIC NOMINATION

He still can win the Democratic Party’s nomination, under not just one but two possible scenarios:

(1): Clinton could be indicted for her having privatized her State Department emails.

As I have documented, there are at least three federal criminal statutes that Hillary Clinton unquestionably did violate by privatizing her State Department emails:

THE FIRST: 18 U.S. Code § 1519 – Destruction, alteration, or falsification of records in Federal investigations and bankruptcy:

Whoever knowingly alters, destroys, mutilates, conceals, covers up, falsifies, or makes a false entry in any record, document, or tangible object with the intent to impede, obstruct, or influence the investigation or proper administration of any matter within the jurisdiction of any department or agency of the United States or any case filed under title 11, or in relation to or contemplation of any such matter or case, shall be fined under this title, imprisoned not more than 20 years, or both.

THE SECOND: 18 U.S.C. Section 641. Public money, property or records: Whoever embezzles, steals, purloins, or knowingly converts to his use, or the use of another, or without authority, sells, conveys or disposes of any record, voucher, money, or thing of value of the United States or of any department or agency thereof, or any property made or being made under contract for the United States or any department or agency thereof, … Shall be fined not more than $10,000 or imprisoned not more than ten years or both. …

Section 793. Gathering, transmitting or losing defense information … (f) Whoever, being entrusted with or having lawful possession or control of any document, writing, code book, signal book, sketch, photograph, photographic negative, blueprint, plan, map, model, instrument, appliance, note, or information, relating to the national defense, (1) through gross negligence permits the same  to be removed from its proper place of custody or delivered to anyone in violation of his trust, or to be lost, stolen, abstracted, or destroyed, or (2) having knowledge that the same has been illegally removed from its proper place of custody or delivered to anyone in violation of its trust, or lost, or stolen, abstracted, or destroyed, and fails to make prompt report of such loss, theft, abstraction, or destruction to his superior officer —  Shall be fined not more than $10, 000 or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both. (g) If two or more persons conspire to violate any of the foregoing provisions of this section, and one or more of such persons do any act to effect the object of the conspiracy, each of the parties to such conspiracy, shall be subject to the punishment provided for the offense which is the object of such conspiracy. 

THE THIRD: 18 U.S. Code § 2071 – Concealment, removal, or mutilation generally: (a)Whoever willfully and unlawfully conceals, removes, mutilates, obliterates, or destroys, or attempts to do so, or, with intent to do so takes and carries away any record, proceeding, map, book, paper, document, or other thing, filed or deposited with any clerk or officer of any court of the United States, or in any public office, or with any judicial or public officer of the United States, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years, or both. (b)Whoever, having the custody of any such record, proceeding, map, book, document, paper, or other thing, willfully and unlawfully conceals, removes, mutilates, obliterates, falsifies, or destroys the same, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years, or both; and shall forfeit his office and be disqualified from holding any office under the United States. As used in this subsection, the term “office” does not include the office held by any person as a retired officer of the Armed Forces of the United States.

I have no sources inside the FBI’s investigation, but the libertarian legal commentator and retired U.S. judge Andrew P. Napolitano does, and he has continually reported that FBI agents who are working on the case have threatened to resign if the Administration blocks them, and he also has reported, on May 12th, that they are closing in on Hillary Clinton now and are pursuing a case against her, negotiating for testimony from her aides (potentially to testify against her), and that “last week”:

a federal judge ordered the same five persons to give videotaped testimony in a civil lawsuit against the State Department which once employed them in order to determine if there was a “conspiracy” – that’s the word used by the judge – in Mrs. Clinton’s office to evade federal transparency laws. Stated differently, the purpose of these interrogations is to seek evidence of an agreement to avoid the Freedom of Information Act requirements of storage and transparency of records, and whether such an agreement, if it existed, was also an agreement to commit espionage – the removal of state secrets from a secure place to a non-secure place.

Although the U.S. President could instruct his Attorney General to drop the investigation into Clinton’s email operation, an FBI agent who would go public about that obstruction of justice would sink not only Clinton’s chances but that President’s historical legacy.

Though an indictment after Clinton’s receiving the Party’s endorsement wouldn’t change the fact of her still being (in that scenario) the Democratic Party’s nominee for the U.S. Presidency, it would cause a split amongst congressional Democrats, some continuing to support her but others not, and a Republican-controlled Congress would be almost certain to result under that circumstance.

The 719 Democratic Party superdelegates at the National Convention are there mainly in order to be able to block a person from receiving the Party’s nomination if that person as the nominee would clearly harm the Party’s chances of winning (controlling) congress and other elective offices throughout the nation; and, so, if Hillary Clinton stands a serious chance of indictment, they’ll oppose her; and, if she has actually been indicted prior to the July 25th start of the National Convention, they’ll definitely vote against her.

(2) Sanders has far higher likelihood of beating Trump than Clinton does.

Nationally polled matchups between Clinton versus Trump, and between Sanders versus Trump, have consistently shown Sanders performing far better than Clinton does. (The trend you see there in those numbers gets worse and worse for Clinton.)

With national polls like that, the superdelegates could possibly, if not perhaps even likely, swing so strongly to Sanders as to hand him the Democratic nomination.

WHAT ABOUT IF CLINTON RECEIVES THE NOMINATION?

As I noted at that last link, there’s “the possibility that Sanders would run a campaign whose message will be ‘Write in “Bernie Sanders”‘ — that he will be campaigning for the votes of everyone who wants him to become the President, to simply write his name in on the Presidential ballot.” And he realistically might win, even under that scenario.

This outcome could provide a U.S. President who is beholden to no Party, and who very possibly (if he wishes to do it) will transform the Democratic Party so that it’s no longer the anti-FDR, anti-Kennedy, anti-LBJ, Party, that eliminated FDR’s Glass-Steagall Act and deregulated banking, and eliminated Aid to Dependent Children, and weakened protections of labor union organizers. He might transform it into, instead, a rebirth and extension of FDR’s progressive Democratic Party, and he thus could restore American politics to its constructive direction, which pertained generally during the period 1932-1980, the period that was dominated by FDR’s Democracy — America’s boom-years, when the U.S. truly did lead the world in democracy.

For Sanders to instead campaign for Clinton, would be for him to endorse her record (not her words but her actual policies in public office), which would make a mockery of not only Sanders’s words, but of his extensive entire record of actions in public office. It would be for him to renounce himself, renounce his most cherished stated and acted-upon beliefs.

Under circumstances such as Sanders is facing, his quitting the Presidential contest would be folly — not to mention a failure by him to live up to what that majority of Americans who want Sanders to be the next President fervently hope and expect from him: to continue to represent their demands for a more progressive America.

We didn’t get to the point of having the one person that more Americans, in all matchup-polls, show to be preferred more than any other individual to become the next U.S. President, by expecting him to back down from his democratic commitment, under such circumstances as have here been documented to pertain. Not at all.

—————

Investigative historian Eric Zuesse is the author, most recently, of  They’re Not Even Close: The Democratic vs. Republican Economic Records, 1910-2010, and of  CHRIST’S VENTRILOQUISTS: The Event that Created Christianity.

Facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinterestlinkedinmail
This entry was posted in General and tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.
  • wunsacon

    It’s Bernie or Trump, because I don’t see how enough D’s show up for Killary.

    The DNC will destroy the party if it nominates Killary. But, maybe that’s a good thing.

  • Carl_Herman

    Great documentation, Eric; thank you!

    Yes, she’s a criminal in the point you document. Importantly, she’s also a War Criminal for lie-started illegal Wars of Aggression that Sanders is likely to also continue.

    If enough of us stand for justice, one-by-one we’ll have light shining in each and every important topic. This ends our Orwellian nightmare of parasitic empire.

  • kimyo

    make a mockery of not only Sanders’s words, but of his extensive entire record of actions in public office.

    name his top achievement during his 20+ years in office.

    you can theorize all you like, but without presenting his words, the way a real reporter would, you cannot possibly know ‘why sanders continues campaigning’.

    likewise, he has been silent on what he’d do if ttip/tpp/tisa were shoved into place before he took office. yet, you report:

    So: TPP, and perhaps TTIP and TISA, will be voted on after the elections and will almost certainly be passed into law; and, if Bernie Sanders will have been elected as President, he will do everything possible to undo them.

    you can hope he’ll ‘do everything possible’. however, that’s just your conjecture, based on your imaginary world. he never said such a thing.

    • diogenes

      So who do you support, Kimyo? Trump? Stein? Who? I see some of Sanders’ limits but I don’t expect him to be nominated in any case — the totally corrupt wholly Wall Street controlled Democratic Party is designed to prevent it — but I do value him as an educator (see above). What do you value? Or do you limit yourself to carping?

      • kimyo

        the election is a fraud. hundreds of thousands of votes for sanders, in key districts, were never counted. the coin-tosses, forged voter affiliation docs, states releasing ‘final totals’ before the votes were counted, it is beyond farcical.

        if sanders were serious, wouldn’t he be talking about this? for that matter, if trump was an actual contender, he’d be on this non-stop, cause diebold has long ago programmed their gear to deliver 51% for clinton.

        your participation in a fraudulent election serves only to maintain the fiction of electoral representation. it allows the ‘winner’ to claim a ‘mandate’. it provides the appearance of democracy.

        not voting is the better option. it’ll be much easier to demonstrate voting machine fraud if no one shows up. ‘boycott 2016’ are the words zuesse fears the most.

        • Brockland A.T.

          Get real. Enough partisans will always show up to make the election look good.

          There’s no such thing as quorum in American elections; not voting is morally the same as voting for the winner. In fact, the system doesn’t want people like you voting at all and have maneuvered you to willingly quit the process.

          Joining some proportional representation group, voting for an independent, write in voting, active participation an anti-electoral fraud movements, all are better options than simply not voting.

          You may feel better about not participating, but its more like being lazy than trying to protest effectively.

          • kimyo

            i fail to see how voting on a diebold machine is a means of ‘effective protest’.

            Fraction Magic – Part 1: Votes are being counted as fractions instead of as whole numbers

            The results of this study demonstrate that a fractional vote feature is embedded in each GEMS application which can be used to invisibly, yet radically, alter election outcomes by pre-setting desired vote percentages to redistribute votes. This tampering is not visible to election observers, even if they are standing in the room and watching the computer.

            What fractionalized votes can do:

            They allow “weighting” of races. Weighting a race removes the principle of “one person-one vote” to allow some votes to be counted as less than one or more than one. Regardless of what the real votes are, candidates can receive a set percentage of votes. Results can be controlled. For example, Candidate A can be assigned 44% of the votes, Candidate B 51%, and Candidate C the rest.

          • kimyo

            i fail to see how voting on a diebold machine is a means of ‘effective protest’.

            Fraction Magic – Part 1: Votes are being counted as fractions instead of as whole numbers

            The results of this study demonstrate that a fractional vote feature is embedded in each GEMS application which can be used to invisibly, yet radically, alter election outcomes by pre-setting desired vote percentages to redistribute votes. This tampering is not visible to election observers, even if they are standing in the room and watching the computer.

            What fractionalized votes can do:

            They allow “weighting” of races. Weighting a race removes the principle of “one person-one vote” to allow some votes to be counted as less than one or more than one. Regardless of what the real votes are, candidates can receive a set percentage of votes. Results can be controlled. For example, Candidate A can be assigned 44% of the votes, Candidate B 51%, and Candidate C the rest.

          • Brockland A.T.

            Surrender is never a good plan.

            http://www.wheresthepaper.org/

          • kimyo

            surrender is voting on diebold, as your link clearly states, multiple times.

          • Brockland A.T.

            The link reiterates your arguments against voting machines, then has a conclusions and take action section, which advocates joining a local good government organization to fight the machines. So no, it does not advocate not voting, but taking action against the machines as a solution.

            Voting machines aren’t going away on their own, for obvious reasons. Or, you can sit in your cabin and pout while the ship sinks.

          • kimyo

            you can sit in your condominium and pretend that your vote will be tallied accurately by software expressly designed to prevent exactly that.

            you ignore the obvious. millions voted for obama, i believe they wanted less war and more transparency. did their participation in this farce deliver any such thing?

            hundreds of thousands of sanders votes are sitting in dumpsters, uncounted. participating in a fraudulent election stamps it with your implicit approval of the outcome.

          • Brockland A.T.

            Oh, I see, you’re a Sanders Democrat. In that case it makes sense to sit out the election to punish the party since Trump is the Dem NOT candidate, Hilary something potentially worse, and Obama a serious let-down. A genuine Democrat has no other choice but to boycott the party and try to force it back on track.

            Millions of Sanders votes wasted is a problem of the Democratic party’s internal process. The party merely risks abandonment; its far more legally serious to tamper with the formal national vote, as opposed to a party-run election where they can break the rules more freely. Sanders isn’t challenging that part of the process, but exacting revenge by sticking through to the convention.

            That’s a gutsy move, trying to force delegates to vote according to popular support or condemn the party with Hilary. She has all the right connections but the popular connection.

            The system is what it is, and the reform process is slow and clunky. However, as a citizen of your country, you’re still on the hook. If you’re a Sanders Democrat, and nothing less will do, then yeah, sitting out this election is possibly the only choice. At least consider voting reform, nationally or within the party (far less hope there) to see if there’s anything you can do instead.

  • diogenes

    Another reason for Bernie to keep campaigning is that, win or lose, he is engaged in public education, bringing forward ideas about economic democracy that have been kept off the table of American political discussion for over a half century by the Wall Street oligarchy and its stranglehold on public discourse. As my essay The Distribution of Wealth In America, posted elsewhere on this cite, discusses, the Progressives saw this as a key function of political platforms and campaigns and used it to good effect for 20 years until Wilson’s police state during World War One imprisoned tens of thousands of Americans, dragooned labor, and drove America into the dictatorship of Wall Street and the Federal Reserve.

  • Brockland A.T.

    Sanders does poll well against Trump, but so did Hilary before the matchup became more real. Then voters start to think, insofar as they are allowed to.

    The Donkeys are in a bind though; the numbers suggest a Hilary-Bernie ticket would be invincible, except for the achilles heel of sheer hypocrisy should angry Bernie join oily Hilary without major binding concessions from Hilary’s Wall Street camp negating the whole point of sticking with her.

    Massive strategic miscalculation on par with the GOP Trumping, though not as entertaining.

  • marki

    theres a lot of wild cards not mentioned,.. this 1988 clip outlines many of them, same game, same players, … https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZYKlwI_oDQM hope its helpful,
    appreciate your works, thanks

  • Baby_Jesus

    This guy ran for president in South Africa in 2014. He discribes the election in minute 35.

    https://youtu.be/pVoO1b_k9b8