It’s Happening Just Like I Told You - The American Spectator | USA News and Politics
It’s Happening Just Like I Told You

This piece will borrow liberally from a pair of previous occupants of this space, in which (1) it was prophesied that Hillary Clinton will not ultimately be that party’s nominee and (2) Mike Bloomberg will be allowed to ride in and purchase that party lock, stock and barrel.

Now that those prophecies no longer reside deep in left field, that is.

We take you back to April 24 of last year

After all, if Congressional investigators seeking Hillary’s emails to discover what her actual role was in the Benghazi massacre — or even neutral third parties — were able to see the full body of those emails, the Clinton camp’s new contention that the emails would absolve her of any guilt emanating from the bribery allegations could gain some credibility. But since she destroyed the evidence no such exoneration is possible. When the accusation is made that Hillary failed to use the customary email system for a person holding the office she held so as to hide ill dealings from the public and conflate her perfidy at the Clinton Foundation with her day job at State, it’s going to stick.

It’s also going to put paid the idea that this woman, who makes quadruple in an hour of jangly and insipid speechifying what an average American household takes home in a year of real work, can pretend to be a champion of the common man.

It’s not possible to run someone this tainted for president and win, regardless of how much she might be able to collect from the Democrats’ donors. If it were, that would indicate the country was so far gone to the Democrats that anyone that party nominates could get elected. That’s a contention that isn’t supported by the current conditions, in which Republicans dominate state legislatures, governor’s mansions, and Congressional districts across the country.

At the time, we could have only had inklings of just how terrible the Hillary e-mail scandal could be. At the time, the e-mail scandal was a mental exercise, a gaming-out of the logical extensions and what-ifs. It was foreseeable, but appeared a worst-case scenario, that Hillary Clinton could have operated exclusively on an unsecured private e-mail server repeatedly hacked by Russians, Chinese, and others among our enemies, trading in material not just classified but Top Secret and above and in fact so secret as to include the work product of spies in the field. Worse, that she was doing all of it for the purposes of concealing that she was essentially selling off American foreign policy as Secretary of State to private citizens and foreign governments who had purchased said policy through donations and honoraria given to the Clinton Foundation.

And yet that is in the main what the FBI has tasked more than 100 agents to uncover in an investigation that shortly will bring us to a constitutional crisis, because when the FBI brings its findings to the Justice Department with the recommendation that a grand jury be empaneled and a criminal case initiated then Attorney General Loretta Lynch and her bosses in the Obama White House are going to have a major problem. If they proceed with pursuit of an indictment on what is almost certain to be an airtight case not just of mishandling classified information — a David Petraeus case on steroids — but also of public corruption emanating out of the Clinton Foundation’s riches, they effectively remove her from the 2016 electoral cycle. She’s finished at that point. America has never had a major presidential candidate run while under indictment, and that is true for a reason.

Hillary’s weakness as a candidate is manifest even without the e-mail scandal coming into full flower yet. But for going 6-for-6 in coin flips to decide the awarding of delegates, Clinton would have lost the Iowa caucuses to Bernie Sanders; in fact, the votes to decide those delegates were ties, and Sanders actually won the caucuses 695-693. The irregularity, opacity, and apparent corruption of the process gave off such a stench that the Des Moines Register issued forth a blistering editorial lambasting the Democratic Party for its disgraceful caucus and demanding a reform of its process. It will be little surprise that the Iowa irregularities fuel what looks like a decisive New Hampshire loss for her to Sanders, the septuagenarian communist apparatchik whose rise in the polls and domination of the young vote has to scare the bejesus out of the party’s muckety-mucks.

And that might be enough to save Hillary from an indictment. It’s entirely possible that Obama squelches the indictment in hopes that Hillary can ride out the political storm that would come. There’s a problem with this, though — which is that if Obama saves her, it’s no longer about Hillary. It is then about Obama. At that point, the words “cover-up” get thrown around with authority, and if and when the FBI and the intelligence community decide to start airing dirty laundry in the press not just about the Hillary investigation but the White House itself, this thing becomes a lot larger scandal than it is now.

Let’s not forget, though naturally it was given short shrift in the media after it came out last week, that among the e-mails we won’t see from Hillary’s private, unsecured server were 18 messages between the Secretary of State and the president himself — the contents of which can’t be seen, naturally, because the material is classified. As Andrew McCarthy wrote at National Review, if you’re looking for a reason why we’ve yet to see what should be an obvious indictment, that sure looks like one.

The easy thing to believe is Obama won’t let Hillary go down to an indictment, but it’s more complicated than that. What will Obama sacrifice for her? Because if he saves her and she doesn’t win, he and his White House staffers could well bear the cost of a Justice Department investigation that begins in earnest on Jan. 20, 2017. And for what? The statute of limitations won’t run on Hillary’s potential crimes before then; she could easily be indicted a year from now on the same investigative product the FBI is accumulating as you read this column. The only difference is if there is evidence of a cover-up she won’t be alone.

And either way, the political damage of the e-mail scandal becoming a criminal brushfire makes Hillary a crispy critter. So those same muckety-mucks who are terrified of Sanders will have to find a way to steal the nomination for him.

Joe Biden is the name being thrown around as a panacea for that problem should it arise. But Biden didn’t run this cycle not because of his family issues; he chose not to run because he couldn’t raise any money. And he’s unlikely to change that in enough volume to offset Sanders’ momentum should Hillary collapse under her legal issues in the next month before the Democrat convention. Not unless Obama decides to hit the trail and raise money for him, which Obama will not want to do (he’d rather raise money for his presidential library instead).

And that brings us to another prophecy this author stands behind. To June 12 of last year

And when that time finally comes, and the inevitable euthanasia of Hillary Clinton’s political ambitions finally materializes, it won’t be Sanders who benefits. Nor will the other Lilliputian Democrat hopefuls, like Jim Webb, Lincoln Chafee or Martin O’Malley.

It’s going to be Mike Bloomberg.

Bloomberg’s potential candidacy, which has been demanded in the pages of USA Today and the New York Post, doesn’t make sense with Hillary in the race. Bloomberg, who is worth a reported $36 billion, could self-finance the most expensive campaign in the history of American politics (even if no amount of money could buy him charisma as a candidate). But he doesn’t appeal to the neo-communists comprising the Democrats’ activist base, who still pine for the insane Elizabeth Warren as their fantasy nominee. Bloomberg doesn’t have a constituency in that party while Hillary is in the race.

And just a little more…

And on such short notice, Bloomberg might well be the only possibility.

Not just because he can self-finance a billion-dollar campaign. Bloomberg has the same Wall Street connections Hillary has — maybe even better ones. And through his various political activities over the past few years he’s managed to buy Democrat politicians across the fruited plain.

It’s that which might ultimately seal the deal. After all, while we laughed at Bloomy’s silly efforts to stop New Yorkers from drinking Big Gulp soft drinks or eating too much salt at restaurants, what he’s truly famous for is his relentless assault on the Second Amendment. His Mayors Against Illegal Guns initiative may have wasted some $50 million in the 2014 cycle with little discernible effect either on the public’s opinion on guns or in producing successful gun-grabbing candidates, but he did manage to bankroll lots of urban Democrat pols along the way.

And gun-grabbing is likely to be big business for Democrats between now and the 2016 elections, because as we can see we’re in for a summer full of lawlessness in our inner cities — and the worse it gets the louder the Left will be in demanding gun control. For all his failure to date, Bloomberg has at least made his bones on the issue with the Left, and in the meantime he can point to his tenure as mayor of New York during which crime was far less than it is now under the Sandinista Bill de Blasio.

Man, money, and moment could well come together once Hillary falls apart. And then we’ll get to see the megalomania of the candidate that only the Left could, even despite itself, truly love.

You’ve seen the discussions the former New York mayor has touched off in the past couple of weeks, though he’s contemplating an independent run against a Trump-Sanders or Cruz-Sanders matchup. But that won’t be necessary if the Democrats are in collapse, and in the event they’re faced with a Clinton who has to leave the race and a Sanders who takes that party into open socialism, don’t be surprised if they happily opt to go down the tubes with an obnoxious one-percenter who buys up the party and self-funds a billion-dollar campaign.

Because at that point the Democrats will understand that 2016 isn’t their year, and they’ll be more than willing to let the self-funder lose the presidential race while they concentrate their resources on trying to win back the Senate when there are 24 Republican seats and only 10 Democrats up for re-election. A Senate in Democrat hands could largely stop a President Cruz or Rubio from implementing a wholesale snapback of the Obama agenda, and that could be their saving grace. And Bloomberg could buy the nomination at the convention even if he doesn’t join the race until its later stages — there are 712 superdelegates holding votes at the convention, remember, which is one-third of the 2,382 needed for election, and Bloomberg is likely to pick up everything Hillary gathers in advance of her implosion.

With all of this looming in the near future to come, don’t be surprised if panic sets in among the Democrats. And don’t be surprised if they’re ready to sell the turkey that is their nomination to a friendly billionaire who’s in the market.

Scott McKay
Follow Their Stories:
View More
Scott McKay is publisher of the Hayride, which offers news and commentary on Louisiana and national politics, and, a national political news aggregation and opinion site. Additionally, he's the author of the new book The Revivalist Manifesto: How Patriots Can Win The Next American Era, available at He’s also a writer of fiction — check out his three Tales of Ardenia novels Animus, Perdition and Retribution at Amazon. Scott's other project is The Speakeasy, a free-speech social and news app with benefits - check it out here.
Sign Up to receive Our Latest Updates! Register

Notice to Readers: The American Spectator and Spectator World are marks used by independent publishing companies that are not affiliated in any way. If you are looking for The Spectator World please click on the following link:

Be a Free Market Loving Patriot. Subscribe Today!