The
White House was placed on lockdown when a suspicious package was
thrown over a fence onto the North Lawn a few minutes after Barack
Obama had arrived, officials reported.
The
unidentified perpetrator, reportedly a woman, was immediately taken
into custody, and the container is currently being checked by
security. Fire trucks and hazardous materials response units were
dispatched to the area.
The
incident comes just a week after an alert was raised when party
balloons flew over the White House and landed on the roof of the
press office and Eisenhower Executive Office Building.
The
pieces of the puzzle are all falling into place now and we can get a
clear picture of just what and whom is behind the election campaign
of Donald Trump. We knew Trump was being financed and heavily
supported by the Zionists when Sheldon Adelson spoke out in support
and gave Trump a huge campaign donation. Now his son has made it even
clearer that Trump is working for the Zionists by telling us
that it was the Iran nuke deal that spurred his orange buffoon of a
father to start his most farcical of presidential candidacies. Israel
and the Zionists were absolutely furious when the Iran deal was
signed, Netanyahu almost went berserk, spewing all kinds of insane
rhetoric.
Unable
to stop the deal, it now looks like the Zionists are trying to
destroy it by injecting Trump into US politics; when Trump says
things like “my
number one priority is to dismantle the disastrous deal with Iran” he
is really saying ‘the
number one task I have been given by my Zionist controllers is to act
in Israel’s best interests by destroying the Iranian nuke deal’.
Trump
needs to end this election campaign not in the oval office, but in a
cell along with all the other treasonous servants of Israel such
as his financial backer Adelson and Rita Katz, the arch liar of
the ISIS war. Hey, here’s a thought – why not make a reality TV
show out of it, Trump would love that!
Republican
candidate’s son reveals nuke deal was a ‘game-changer’ for him,
which made him finally say ‘I’m going to give this a real shot.’
Real
estate mogul Donald Trump, who currently is the Republican
presidential nominee, decided to launch his campaign due to the
controversial Iran nuclear deal sealed last July, according to his
son Eric.
“I
think, honestly, the Iran nuclear deal was one of the things that
made him jump into the race,” Eric Trump told the “Cats
Roundtable” radio program on AM 970 in New York on Sunday, reports
the Jewish Insider.
“I
think that was a game-changer for him,” Trump told the show host
John Catsimatidis. “That is when he finally said, ‘Kids, I am
going to do it. I am going to give this a real shot.'”
Trump
has repeatedly condemned US President Barack Obama for signing the
nuclear deal, and that condemnation was also heard in his speech on
June 16, 2015 kicking off his campaign.
“If
he makes that deal, Israel maybe won’t exist very long. We have to
protect Israel,” Trump stated then less than a month before the
deal was made, noting on Tehran’s open threats to wipe the Jewish
state off the map.
The
Republican candidate also spoke about the deal in a rally in
Wisconsin last month, when he said the Iranians abused US Secretary
of State John Kerry “mentally” in the nuclear deal talks,
quipping that they treated him “like a child.”
“They
took advantage of him like he was a baby,” he added.
Trump
also made clear the Iran deal was a key priority of his during a
speech at AIPAC in march, when he said, “my number one priority is
to dismantle the disastrous deal with Iran.”
Democratic
frontrunner Hillary Clinton, former Secretary of State for Obama, has
for her part promised to maintain the Iran nuclear deal.
Why
is the deal bad?
There
has been great criticism over the nuclear deal for a variety of
issues, with many noting that a similar deal sealed by former
President Bill Clinton with North Korea in 1994 paved the regime’s
path to a nuclear arsenal. The country’s first nuclear test took
place in 2006.
The
deal allows Iran to wait until limitations on its nuclear program
expire in 15 years, at which point it could race to building a
nuclear arsenal.
Alternatively,
it is feared Iran can easily breach the deal which has Tehran inspect
its own covert nuclear facilities such as Parchin, requiring a notice
of 24 days before international inspectors can access such sites.
Another
aspect that has been criticized is how the nuclear deal does not
address Iran’s role as the leading state sponsor of terrorism and
grants it a massive windfall in sanctions kickbacks. Tehran has shown
an increasingly hostile stance towards the US since the deal,
breaching UN sanctions in ballistic missile tests and briefly holding
US Navy sailors hostage.
Obama’s
administration for its part was recently revealed by senior White
House aide Ben Rhodes as having tricked the public on the nuclear
deal, using an “echo chamber” of supportive groups to sell the
deal and falsely claiming the talks were launched with “moderate”
Iranian President Hassan Rouhani when he came into office in 2013,
when in reality they were started with hardliners a year before.
Numerous
groups were paid by the Obama administration to advocate for the deal
– the group that received the most was the Jewish liberal group J
Street, which took $576,000 to promote the nuclear deal.
David
Miranda says the public has the right to see documents leaked by
Edward Snowden, which he plans to release soon. However, Miranda told
RT that he has been pressured from US and UK security agencies not to
disclose the documents.
On
August 18, 2013, Miranda’s life was turned upside down when he was
detained at London’s Heathrow Airport for 12 hours under
anti-terrorism laws. This came after his partner Glenn Greenwald had
published numerous documents released by the former NSA contractor
Edward Snowden.
Now
the Brazilian-born Miranda says the public has the right to “see
what is inside” the documents, which he plans to leak within the
next few weeks, despite coming under pressure from governments not to
publish the files.
RT: As
we understand we are on the brick of new disclosures? Are we going to
have any new surprises?
David
Miranda: I
imagine everybody is going to have a lot of surprises with what you
can find inside those files. There are a lot of files that we didn’t
use for a reason. And for a lot of reasons we have now a lot of
pressure, a lot of people want to see that. And we had long
conversations over the years [about] whether should we do that or
not. And now we want to do this, because we owe [it] to the public to
be able to see what is inside of those documents.
RT: And
how many of the documents or materials that you have are you planning
to disclose in the next few weeks or so?
DM: I
cannot say certainly, but most of the documents are going to be
online and people and journalists are going to be able to access that
and see the information that we got from Snowden in 2013.
RT: You
spoke about pressure from the public to see these documents, see what
you have. But have you received any pressure not to publish it?
DM: Always.
Every time that we wanted to publish something, the agencies – NSA,
GCHQ – they always said that if we published that, it was going to
be a threat to national security and all this bullsh*t they always
say to us. So they always kind of threatened us that we are going to
be harming the countries by doing that. We haven’t had one single
case of that happening in the past and it’s not going to happen
now. We know how these governments say something to frighten you.
RT: What
process do you guys go through in order to estimate what material you
can publish and what could be a possible threat to national security?
Is there a process?
DM: There
is. In the beginning we would use a lot of the knowledge of the
experts that we would consult first. The time passed and we have our
own crew inside The Intercept that would look through that and would
give their expertise: Would that ... harm somebody or not? And of
course as journalists we have sensibility for material, so we would
look at material and say: ‘Will this be a problem for the US and
relations with this country?’ But also it’s the major goal for us
to show the public what really is developing inside of those
countries: whether they are spying or doing something wrong. So, we
put on the table what is in the public interests and how we can show
that without doing any harm. And I guess so far we have done that
pretty [well].
RT: Yes,
because nothing you guys have published has harmed any sort of
national security. But do you act responsibly?
DM: Yes,
we do, we have always been very careful with everything that we are
going to be publishing … All the newspapers that we publish with
around the world are respected ones like New York Times, Der Spiegel,
The Hindu. All around the world we publish with very secure
journalists who have been working for many years. So we are very
careful in the process of publishing.
RT: Now
this is the process that you guys have completely controlled, and you
have a systemic way of approaching it. And you have certain things
you know you have to do. But take me back to those first days back in
2013. The first hour when you guys were in Singapore and afterwards
in Berlin when you really didn’t know what you had with you. Was it
frightening. Was it exciting?
DM: That
was very exciting. As journalists we are looking through that, we are
trying to find gold and everything was very interesting for
journalistic materials. But also we were very careful with everything
that we wanted to publish because we always had that threat that we
are going to harm national security. But in the end of the day it was
like three hours of sleeping, working with like ten journalists from
five different countries at my house where we spent days. With every
story that got published, we had to do a follow-up. It was very
exciting and we barely knew how much time has passed.
Now
we have control over the situation, but back then we did have control
but there was more work, constant work in all the countries and so
many interesting journalists that we had to meet in the process. With
different views. And sometimes we had to struggle with some of them.
They didn’t understand what we wanted to publish. Sometimes we had
to agree with something different. It was fun, but I lost like ten
kilos over the first six months. I forgot to eat, I forgot to drink,
[it] was just constantly coffee and working.
RT: Those
days were very intense, even fun, you said, lots of work, but were
you frightened that something could happen to you?
DM: In
the beginning in April 2013 we met with Laura [Poitras]in Yonkers.
And then we saw a glimpse of what would be the archive that would be
given to us a month later. So before Glenn jumped on a plane to go to
China, we sat for like five or six hours and we just went through
everything that would change in our lives from that moment on.
We
knew that we were going to go against governments that are very
powerful. We knew that they could do some harm to us. And we made
that decision. Then once [we] made a clear decision, there was no
fear in that, there was only a battle ... to face every day against
those in power. So we made that decision and we went to war. Of
course there were moments that I was afraid for my life and Glenn was
afraid for his life. But we still had it in the back of our minds
that we are taking this risk because we need to shine some light on
those that are in power and [who] used that wrongly. So we made that
decision in the beginning.
RT: Obviously
one of the days when you were frightened for your own personal
security was that day in the London airport of Heathrow: Nine hours
in custody, interrogated, all of your material being searched. How
did you live through these hours?
DM: Well,
actually it was twelve hours. For nine hours they held me inside a
room, plus three hours they held my passport inside of the airport.
It was a really hard day. Every time I have to talk about that, the
emotion come vivid into me. Last week I was doing an event and
talking about that, and I got shaky because of the entire situation.
It
was a really hard experience. I was working before this whole process
happened – with the Oliver Stone and Glenn – we are going to do a
documentary about the families who have somebody whom the government
of the US or one of the other governments got and put into
Guantanamo. So I knew back then what these governments do when they
say they use anti-terror law. I knew they have limitless powers. My
strategy in there was that I needed to understand the whole situation
they are putting me through and I had to survive the situation. I was
very cold in that first moment, but at the same time I knew that I
could be vanished from now at that moment.
First
thing they have to do they had to explain why they were holding me
there. They started explaining the law to me and I would interrupt
them every single sentence because I needed to know exactly how I
could get out of there, what I needed to do and how long they can
hold me. So they explained to me that by the law they can hold me for
nine hours. So I put it in my mind – I have to kill nine hours. You
have one call to a lawyer from their system or outside their system.
One call, you can talk to one lawyer. So I say: ‘Okay, I have to
talk to one person I trust the most.’ And you have to fully
cooperate with the agent. And if at the end of the nine hour the
agents think that you didn’t agree with them, that you didn’t
cooperate, they can send you to prison. So here’s you sitting in a
position: you have to kill nine hours; you have one contact, it’s
going to be lawyer that you don’t know if you are going to be able
to get; and you have to cooperate with them and answer all their
questions. Because if you don’t, if you keep silence – you are
not cooperating and they can take you to jail.
RT: And
you have very sensitive material with you?
DM: Yes,
that too. So it was like a struggle because they would ask me a
question ‘What’s your name’. I would say ‘David’. ‘What’s
your full name?’ And I would engage in a whole fight with them. So
up to certain points they would trap me: ‘Sir, you have to answer
that question’. And I would look to them and say: ‘Why do I have
to answer that question?’ ‘If you do not answer this question,
you’re not cooperating and you’re going to jail’.
They
asked about my family, my friends, what I was doing in Germany, asked
about my relations with Glenn, with Laura. They ask all kinds of
questions. But, like I said, family and friends … was when it got
to me to a certain point, because Glenn and I, we both signed up for
this. I sat down, we knew that we’re going to be taken but my
family have nothing to do with that. My friends have nothing to do
with that.
When
they got into that point where it started breaking me: I was
accepting that I was going to go to jail. I was glad that was me, not
Glenn. I was afraid for myself but at the same time relieved that was
not him because if I was outside I would not know what to do in that
situation and I would have gone crazy.
So,
yeah, it was a really difficult experience and I only wanted to go
back a little bit. They would use techniques against me. Like they
would get two cups of water and just put them on the table. And the
agent would drink their water and ask me if I was not thirsty, if I
wanted to drink. He did that like six times with the glass of water.
I spent all twelve hours without drinking, without eating and without
going to the bathroom. I was afraid there was something in that
water. And he did that systematically. He would drink and make the
sound ‘Ahh’. I didn’t accept anything from them and didn’t
get anything from them.
Then
three hours passed and I got a cellphone [the agent] wanted to give
to me: ‘Remember, that you just have one call and you can talk to
one lawyer.’ I did not accept a lawyer from their system. So I say:
‘You get me a lawyer from the Guardian’. So they went and got me
a lawyer from the Guardian. You know what time my lawyer [came]?
After eight hours and 50 minutes was when I was able to talk to
anybody. Seven different agents asked me questions intensely for
eight hours 50 minutes. It was a long long day. It was a struggle
that I am here able to tell people what those governments are doing.
And
after that they wanted me to walk freely inside of their country. I
talked to my lawyer but they wanted to stamp my passport and just
make me go inside London, UK. At that moment I was in Heathrow’s
lounge. And their boss, who was outside the door when they changed
the agents and never walked in, at that moment he was on the phone
very proud of himself. He took all my material, all journalistic
material, under the European anti-terror law. So he took everything,
he stripped me of everything. He was all proud. So what I did was I
started screaming out of my lungs: ‘I want to talk to my
ambassador. I want to talk to my lawyer. They had held me here for
nine hours.’ When I started screaming everybody started shooting,
picking up their cellphones. It was the first time he [the boss] came
and acknowledged my presence and he [whispered] ‘You’ve got to
shut up…Shh’. And I was like: ‘If I get to your soil, I would
go to every TV station and tell them what you did to me today. And
you get me a ticket to go back to Brazil’. And that’s what they
really did for the last two hours. They struggled to get my ticket to
go to the British Isles but they could not get it because it was all
full. They tried to pass my big luggage inside. They wanted to break
all the rules in the airport. They didn’t let them. So they had to
get me a late ticket.
And
it was finally when I was in the detour for the airplane that they’ve
given me my passport back… And I was able to talk to an agent and I
said ‘Look, they just had me here for 12 hours. My partner doesn’t
know what’s happening to me. I need to make a phone call to
Brazil.’ And he ran and he got me a cellphone, and I called. Glenn
didn’t answer, and I called a friend of mine and told them ‘Look,
this is my number of my flight. I am going to be coming to Rio’.
And I get inside the airplane and I couldn’t sleep the entire
night.
When
I got back and there were tons of journalists at the airport. I
couldn’t talk to them but Glenn asked me and I had to talk to them.
And I went home and I couldn’t sleep, I slept for two hours. And
the next day I was on all this television. That was like that my
entire week, my entire year. But that entire situation just got me to
go more against those kinds of countries that use that against so
many people. Ninety percent of the people who get detained under that
law are Arabs and black people…
RT: That
is what I was going to ask you about. About 85,000 in the last few
years. Allegedly, more Muslims than any others.
DM: Yes,
exactly.
RT: I
am asking about the terrorism act. The court of appeal actually said
it was justified what happened to you.
DM: Yeah
but we won in the broader aspect. We won because there was one for
the democracy, one for the journalism because they cannot be using
that law against journalism anymore. They are going to have to change
that law and you, if you go past through that with your journalism
material, they won’t be able to process you under this law anymore.
They have to change that law now. And the process that they say was
lawful, that it was right to do that to me, because they don’t want
to be incriminated themselves. We won because they will not be able
to do that in the future to any journalist, because this is
incompatible with the European Convention, like I said.
RT: That
was, obviously, a victory for the freedom of press, freedom of
speech. But how can journalists move freely if they have information
with them. What else has changed since the elections?
DM: Well,
you see it every day now in our daily lives. Your cell phone, you
have all the apps – WhatsApp with the encryption. You have the
iMessage that is encrypted. You have Facebook – there is encryption
now. What changed was not the posture of the governments, it was
actually the private sector. Not because they want to be nice, but
because there was public pressure on them and public pressure on the
market. Companies in Germany would announce: ‘Use our social
networks, because if you use our social network we will protect your
information. And don’t use Facebook.’ That becomes something that
could be sold. So those companies changed their posture not because
they didn’t want to be liar[s] with their governments, but they
changed their posture because they would lose consumers. So, this is
how our world operates, this mechanism. But we actually made huge
changes on that segment because today we have the right of privacy on
cellphones, in emails we have way more access to privacy this very
day [that] we didn’t have before.
RT: In
2014 you met with Edward Snowden in Moscow. Have you been there with
him since then? How is he in Russia?
DM: I’d
rather not comment on that. But we talk with each other almost every
day. We have secure channels that we’ve been talking [through]. We
have this close relationship. He is doing whatever he wants to do. He
is free to walk around there, he’s been able to participate in this
entire debate he helps to create. And he helps to shape the entire
debate around the world. So he’s doing fine.
He
signed up to show the world what the US was doing in their lives and
he was willing to pay the price to be in jail, in solitary for the
rest of his life. And right now he is right over there and he is free
and he’s been able to participate in this debate that he helped to
create. So that is fantastic for him.
Some
people actually call him a traitor. But I don’t give value to those
people because they don’t understand the concept of freedom. To
call him a traitor is not understanding the concept of freedom. He
was willing to give up and sacrifice himself in order to show the
entire world what was his government and its allies doing. He has
sacrificed himself to do that and people who call him a traitor don’t
have any knowledge of what freedom means. So I don’t respect those
people.
Impeachment
of Rousseff is ‘real blow for democracy’
RT:
I
wanted to ask you as a journalist and as a Brazilian. What’s your
take on the impeachment process, also called ‘a coup d’etat?’
DM:
This is a very bad scenario for Brazilians and for the international
world. I think this entire process is totally illegitimate because
the ones who are pulling this, the people who are in the government
right now and those voting against Dilma [Rousseff], are the ones
[who are] corrupted. They put this entire process, they moved the
public opinion with the big media corporation.
So
it’s a real blow to democracy and they are using all the laws to do
that. It’s totally illegitimate. I don’t accept that government
in there. I’m not saying I was comfortable with the government of
Dilma, but at least there was a democracy that we voted [for] and
that was in place. But let’s not compare this with the coup that
happened in 1964 because that was a different process. It was a
takeover by the military.
This
is a process that is not legitimate but is giving so much harm that
we can’t measure right now. This is going to be something we are
going to be able to measure in five to 10 years because of the
relations that Brazil has with MERCOSUR, with the BRICS and other
countries. The way the other countries are seeing Brazil right now is
that this is such a young democracy, they are so corrupt that those
who wanted to take power go and take it. So how is this going to show
the world how they are going to have relations with Brazil? They
wanted to put companies here, they want to have bilateral relations
with Brazil. If they cannot trust this government that is here, in
place, if they cannot trust this democracy that is going to be going
forward.
RT:Is
this an all-Brazilian phenomenon or are there some other countries
with bigger interests taking part in this process?
DM:
I don’t like talking about things that I don’t actually have
documents to prove, but there are a lot of people who actually say
that the US and other countries are plotting this. But unless I have
the actual evidence of countries plotting with the US, Brazil, or
other countries, I’d rather not just say that.
RT:What
do you think about the WikiLeaks revelation that Michel Temer was
actually an informant for the US embassy down here in Brazil?
DM:
Well, it was very shocking, but not so much. We know that the
government of the PSDB [Brazilian Social Democracy Party] used to
have really close relations with the US. They wanted Brazil to become
this magical world with open commerce, but the situation had been bad
for many years.
And
they wanted to do that in the 90s here in Brazil but the entire left
made a movement against that. And we won in 2002. Lula got into this
process and didn’t let that happen. And then he built up a relation
to become the MERCOSUR, and Dilma now with the BRICS…. We create
diversity of how we can actually have relations with other countries.
But
with this government getting here, I get very cautious because last
week – just a position of the Itamaraty [Foreign Ministry] - it's
not a diplomatic situation. [Jose] Serra is over there... how is he
going to interact with other countries? It’s harming our nation and
how the other countries are going to perceive us.
Sanders
seems to be saying that defeating Donald Trump is the highest
priority and that Hillary Clinton would be a better candidate
My
gut feeling is that Clinton's email midemeanours will be overlooked
(along with her corruption and war crimes) and the
Establishment will choose her as the candidate to lose against Trump.
Think
1968.
As
Clinton crisis intensfies, Sanders pledges to back Democratic Party
nominee
With
eight days to go before the final round of presidential primaries,
Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders reiterated his pledge to support
Hillary Clinton if she prevails in the campaign for the Democratic
nomination.
In
an interview recorded Saturday and broadcast on NBC’s “Meet the
Press” program Sunday, Sanders repeatedly declared that his top
priority was to ensure the defeat of the presumptive Republican
presidential nominee Donald Trump.
In
response to a question from interviewer Chuck Todd about whether he
had a responsibility to ensure his supporters voted for Clinton if
she wins the nomination, Sanders said, “The responsibility that I
accept in a very, very serious way is to do everything that I can to
make sure that Donald Trump will not become elected president of the
United States. Donald Trump, for a dozen different reasons, would be
a disaster as president. I will do everything that I can to make sure
that does not happen.”
Todd
pressed him to discuss his “responsibility to do what it takes to
bring your supporters onboard with her. Do you accept that
responsibility?” The interviewer continued, “You just said you
want to do whatever it takes to stop him. You don’t believe you
need to be out there telling your supporters, ‘You may not be happy
with Hillary Clinton, but she’s better than him’?”
Sanders
replied, “Well, no question about that. No question about that. But
where my mind is right now is to do everything that I can in the
remaining caucuses and primaries to try to win them and make the
case. But if your question is do I think that Secretary Clinton is
significantly a better candidate for America than is Donald Trump,
that is not a debate. Of course that is true.”
This
response was a clear signal of the two-track policy that Sanders is
carrying out in the final stages of the Democratic primary campaign.
He has issued a series of protests and demands over the organization
of the Democratic National Convention in Philadelphia, combined with
reassurances of his support for the eventual nominee, presumed to be
Clinton.
Including
pledged “super delegates,” Clinton is expected to reach the 2,383
delegates required for nomination when polls close in New Jersey June
7, the first of six states to hold primaries or caucuses that day. At
least one cable network, MSNBC, has indicated it will project a
Clinton victory in the overall nomination contest even before polls
have closed in states further west, including California, which
accounts for 475 of the 684 delegates to be awarded June 7.
On
Friday, the Sanders campaign sent a letter to party officials
demanding the replacement of the Clinton campaign’s choices to head
the rules committee and the platform committee, former Representative
Barney Frank and Connecticut Governor Daneel Malloy, with more
neutral figures. This was flatly rejected, although Democratic
National Committee Chair Debbie Wassermann Schultz did agree to name
five top Sanders delegates, including Cornel West and James Zogby, to
the platform committee.
While
media commentators have presented Sanders’ pledge to continue his
campaign right up to the convention as a defiant challenge to
Clinton, there is another explanation for the series of demands and
apparent displays of intransigence: Sanders is seeking to keep the
attention of his own supporters focused on the Democratic convention,
even after Clinton clinches the nomination.
He
is seeking to foster the illusion that the July convention in
Philadelphia, an assemblage of political hacks and representatives of
corporate America, will be responsive to the left-wing sentiments of
the youth and working people who have rallied in support of Sanders.
Some
10 million people have voted for Sanders in the Democratic primaries
and caucuses, a shift in popular consciousness which has taken the
entire two-party political establishment—including Sanders
himself—and the corporate-controlled media by surprise.
The
endgame in the campaign for the Democratic presidential nomination is
how to contain this leftward movement within safe channels, by
delivering Sanders supporters, who are overwhelmingly hostile to the
Wall Street politics and warmongering with which Hillary Clinton is
identified, into Clinton’s grasp.
Sanders
has more or less openly advised the Clinton campaign that they need
to make concessions on the platform and in naming a vice presidential
running mate if he is to be able to control the revulsion among his
supporters to a Clinton nomination.
In
response to further questions on Meet the Press, Sanders said, “I
would hope, if I am not the nominee, that the vice presidential
candidate will not be from Wall Street, will be somebody who has a
history of standing up and fighting for working families, taking on
the drug companies whose greed is doing so much harm, taking on Wall
Street, taking on corporate America, and fight for a government that
works for all of us, not just the one percent.”
Given
several opportunities to deny any interest in being that vice
presidential candidate, Sanders only repeated, “Right now, my focus
is on winning the nomination,” leaving Todd to conclude, “Fair
enough, you’re not ruling it out.”
The
Clinton campaign was staggered this week by a State Department
inspector-general’s report assailing her use of a private email
server throughout her four years as Secretary of State in the Obama
administration, and by polls showing her virtually tied with Sanders
in California.
If
Clinton loses California, along with Montana, South Dakota, North
Dakota and New Mexico on June 7, winning only New Jersey, she will
have lost 16 of the final 23 states to hold primaries or caucuses,
the worst-ever showing of any victorious candidate for a Democratic
or Republican presidential nomination—if she ends up getting the
nomination.
The
Democratic political establishment is bending all its efforts to
dragging Clinton across the finish line. Appearing on the ABC Sunday
interview program “This Week,” Senator Diane Feinstein of
California denounced suggestions that the email scandal could derail
Clinton’s nomination. She said of Sanders, “He ought to be able
to read the signposts as well as anybody else. And if he did that he
would know that it’s all but over.”
Feinstein
was in effect dismissing the right of voters in her own state, whose
primary is nine days away, to participate in the selection of a
nominee—an indication of the contempt for democratic rights that
prevails throughout the US ruling elite and its political
representatives.
Cenk
Uygur over at the Young Turks had the interview of a lifetime. He
just interviewed Bernie Sanders, and it was a mind-blower.
Today
on The Young Turks Cenk Uygur interviewed Bernie Sanders and asked
the question:
“Now,
a lot of the people in the movement have decided that you are their
leader, partly because you’re running for President, but you look
at some recent polls of millennials, they have you by far the most
popular politician; but they actually have you as more popular as a
person they’d like to meet above Beyonce`, okay that’s a hell of
a thing…
But
you have convinced them that Hillary Clinton is the establishment
candidate. If you were to lose, and the Democratic party comes to you
and says take this movement that is full of energy and that is
against the establishment, and make sure they vote for the
establishment candidate, what do you say?”
Bernie’s
answer was gold, and left things up in the air on whether he would
back Hillary or go his own way…
Well..
what I say: Number one I’m not that big into being a “leader”…
I’d much rather prefer to see a lot of leaders and a lot of
grassroots activism.
Number
two, what we do is together, as a nation .. as a growing movement is
we say: “If
we don’t win..”and
by the way we are in this thing to win, please understand that. “What
is the Democratic establishment gonna do for us?”
From
this exchange we can surmise that there’s no guarantee that he will
blindly back the Democratic Party’s candidate if we get
nothing out of doing so.
Depending
on how things look in July, an Independent run could be in the
works. He’s said he probably wouldn’t consider it – but that
was months ago.That was before this got messy.
It
was before millions of people were disenfranchised in Arizona and
likely will be in future contests. It was before Bill Clinton started
showing up at polling places in Massachusetts and Illinois
blocking traffic, and delaying voters from getting to the polls.
The more people that are cast aside during this election, the more
angry we as a movement get.. and the more angry Bernie gets..if it
keeps going like this there will be a fever pitch where we all
going to band together and “Bern down” the establishment
together.
If
Trump wins the nomination, it’s likely that Republicans might throw
in a third party candidate, or if there’s a brokered convention and
Trump loses even though he has a majority of the delegates – he may
run as an Independent. If it’s Hillary Clinton facing two right
wing candidates, Bernie would stand a lot better chance. Some are
even saying that if it’s between Trump and Hillary that both
candidates have such low favorability ratings that Bernie Sanders
could still win against the both of them.
When
asked whether he really believes that Hillary Clinton would keep any
of her promises that she’s made since Iowa when she switched up her
whole platform, he said basically that it’s very doubtful. You can
see her thinking prematurely that she’s already won, and already
she’s moving back to center on the issues.
People
see her dishonesty, and only her die hard supporters don’t see
through it.
Bernie
quoted Tom Donahue head of the Chamber of Commerce who said: “Don’t
worry what she said in the campaign, she’s just trying to match
Bernie Sanders. If she’s elected, I think she’ll be okay on the
TPP”.
Watch
the full interview below (by the way the part about whether he’d
back the establishment candidate or not is around the 16 minute
mark).
According
to Real Clear Politics, Bernie Sanders defeats Donald Trump in an
average of polls by 10.8 points:
Bernie
Sanders, in an average of four national polls for the month of May,
defeats Trump by 10.8 points. Vermont’s Senator is victorious in
every general election matchup.
In
contrast, Hillary Clinton according to Real Clear Politics now loses
to Donald Trump by .2 points
Hillary Clinton Is Threatening Donald Trump Presidency NOT Bernie Sanders
Posts
