BREAKING: Memos Reveal Comey Cleared Clinton BEFORE Interviewing Her & 17 Other Key Witnesses

Washington, DC – In what can be described as nothing less than a bombshell revelation, memos from former FBI director James Comey, obtained by the Senate Judiciary Committee investigating his firing by President Trump, reveal that the bureau chief began writing drafts of a statement clearing Hillary Clinton of criminal wrongdoing prior to at least key 17 witnesses being interviewed by the FBI – including Clinton herself.

These newly discovered facts raise the question; how can someone be exonerated of a crime before the investigation has been completed?

During a press conference, on July 5, 2016, former FBI director Comey stated that he would not recommend charges to the U.S. Department of Justice, and noted that despite her mishandling of classified information on a private email server, there was no intent to subvert the law.

The incriminating revelations, that Comey began drafting memos of an exoneration letter, come from transcripts of interviews given by two FBI official, according to the Daily Caller.

According to the Daily Caller:

Advertisment

James Rybicki, Comey’s chief of staff, and Trisha Anderson, the principal deputy general counsel of national security and cyberlaw at the FBI, gave the interviews as part of an investigation conducted by the Office of Special Counsel into the FBI’s handling of the Clinton email investigation.

While the transcripts of those interviews are heavily redacted, they indicate that Comey started working on an announcement clearing Clinton in April or May of last year, before the FBI interviewed 17 witnesses in the case, including Clinton and some of her top aides.

Let that sink in for a moment.

READ MORE:  Assange Destroys Liberals and Conservatives, Shows How They"re the Same in Epic Tweet Storm

Comey actually began penning a letter exonerating Clinton in April or May of 2016, but Clinton wasn’t even interviewed until July 2 – only three days prior to Comey’s public announcement.

It seems logical that the only way Comey could have decided that Clinton was innocent prior to her and numerous witnesses being interviewed is if the facts of the case were not connected to her exoneration – or more succinctly – the investigation was simply political theater for the masses, and more importantly, rigged from the start.

Two U.S. Senators, Iowa Sen. Chuck Grassley and South Carolina Sen. Lindsey Graham, sent a letter to the FBI, which specifically noted that Comey’s draft was prepared well before two Clinton aides, Cheryl Mills and Heather Samuelson, were given what Republicans deemed a “highly unusual” immunity deal with the U.S. Justice Department.

The “highly unusual” limited immunity deal prohibited FBI agents and prosecutors from inquiring about conversations between Platte River Networks, the tech firm that managed Clinton’s private email server after she left the State Department, and Mills and Samuelson.

The Senators strongly questioned how Comey could have conducted a complete and impartial investigation if he had already drawn a conclusion about the outcome of the case prior to all of the interviews and evidence having been collected.

“Conclusion first, fact-gathering second — that’s no way to run an investigation,” Grassley and Graham wrote in the letter to the FBI. “The FBI should be held to a higher standard than that, especially in a matter of such great public interest and controversy.”

“The outcome of an investigation should not be prejudged while FBI agents are still hard at work trying to gather the facts,” they added.

READ MORE:  FBI Discovers 30 Bengahazi Emails -- All Deleted by Clinton

The facts speak for themselves, and as many people already suspected, there was no real investigation into the criminal actions of Hillary Clinton.

Instead, the American public was treated to a dog and pony show meant to look as if Clinton was being held to the same standards as any other citizen. However, the same rules that would apply to any other American were summarily dismissed in an effort to bolster the presidential candidacy of an extremely powerful political operator.

As the legendary George Carlin so eloquently proclaimed, “It’s a big club, and you ain’t in it!”

Here’s How to Honor the Fallen this Memorial Day by Exposing the Warmongering Lies of Govt

Displaying flags and placing flowers on the graves of military members might be two of the more traditional Memorial Day methods of showing tribute to those who have fallen in battle; but perhaps a new tradition must be initiated — one that would constitute the highest form of respect. It’s time, beginning with Memorial Day 2017, to prevent any further unnecessary deaths by exposing the lies of the American empire in corporate and defense profiteering as the now-exclusive driving factors behind its push for war on all fronts.

Before jumping to assert this would somehow disrespect those who have died, understand it is precisely because the lives of U.S. troops are precious that we should not allow anyone to die for less than the most noble cause. And the imperialist goals of a crumbling empire simply do not embody a laudable reason to put lives on the line. Exposing mendacious pro-war propaganda for what it is could swiftly change the minds of future soldiers considering devoting their lives to military service.

Plenty of past examples of unabashed pro-war propaganda can be found in narratives invariably regurgitated by mainstream media acting as the government’s cheerleader.

When Russia delivered humanitarian aid to victims of ethnic cleansing in Ukraine, the United States attempted to present the move as an invasion. But its inept propaganda quickly became apparent when evidence to back up the claim never materialized — it was nonexistent because it wasn’t true.

Ukrainian leader Petro Poroshenko’s ultranationalist goals to clamp down on the people of Eastern Ukraine who wished to retain their Russian culture was quickly reinforced with military action. As thousands of civilians were killed and millions fled the violence, Russia sent a convoy of aid in medical supplies and food. But due to lingering Cold War resentment by the U.S. government, the aid convoy suddenly became a Russian invasion — properly touted as such by every corporate media outlet and, of course, by then-Secretary General of NATO, Anders Fogh Rasmussen, as well as John Kerry.

“Russian artillery support — both cross-border and from within Ukraine — is being employed against Ukrainian armed forces,” asserted Rasmussen in August 2014. This was backed by Kerry, who claimed of the Russian aid convoy in a flagrantly hypocritical statement, “This is an act of aggression that is completely trumped up in terms of in terms of its pretext. It’s really 19th-century behavior in the 21st century … You just don’t invade another country on phony pretexts in order to assert your interests.”

Not only did neither official present evidence of their claims, but the most telling confirmation the contrary was true developed just two days ago with the announcement Rasmussen will now act as “non-staff” advisor to none other than Ukrainian president Poroshenko.

But the public quickly believed the bold-faced lie — precisely as the U.S. assumed it would based on its previous enormous successes in fooling the public by proffering only half- and untruths to promote military action.

Invading Iraq after the attacks of September 11, 2001, received similar public support, when the U.S. hammered its claim Saddam Hussein had been stockpiling ‘weapons of mass destruction’ — despite actual evidence to the contrary from the International Atomic Energy Agency. President George W. Bush later disgustingly, unapologetically quipped during a black-tie press event, “Those weapons of mass destruction gotta be somewhere.”

Muammar Gaddafi’s demise was similarly inevitable when oil-rich Libya moved away from the petrodollar toward the gold dinar. Though Gaddafi indeed headed a dictatorship, the U.S. took propagandizing to new lows by claiming the ‘brutal’ dictator provided Viagra for Libyan troops to perform “systematic rape” of innocent civilians. A reporter who asked for actual evidence of these crimes was directed to International Criminal Court documents — however, of 77 total pages, 17 through 76 were wholly redacted, leaving putative evidence out of public reach. Though the fervent push to set up a central bank in Libya should have clued in the American public, it took the declassification of Hillary Clinton’s notorious emails to break previous pro-war mythology.

After 9/11, the U.S. government waged a disinformation campaign claiming the capture of Osama bin Laden necessitated the invasion of Afghanistan. Further propaganda has since declared the United States is rebuilding the war-ravaged country, but as journalist John Pilger noted, just 3 percent of aid to Afghanistan “is used for reconstruction.”

As James Corbett pointed out in a breakdown of numerous pro-war and pro-military action propaganda campaigns, the U.S. created false or misleading angles to back its interests in the invasion of Grenada, in Vietnam in the Gulf of Tonkin incident, World Wars One and Two, the Spanish-American War, Uganda (with the sham “Kony 2012” pseudo-documentary), and many others.

Recently, renowned journalist Seymour Hersh revealed — despite the U.S. goal of deposing Syria’s president — the Joint Chiefs of Staff indirectly aided Bashar al-Assad’s regime by sending ‘intelligence via Russia, Germany, and Israel on the understanding it would be transmitted to help push back Jabhat al-Nusra and the Islamic State.’

Hersh also claimed the 2013 sarin chemical attack in Ghouta had been staged as an excuse to draw the U.S. into Syria at the behest of Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan — and that Hillary Clinton had approved sending the deadly chemical to rebels to pull it off. Turkish news daily Zaman later confirmed Hersh’s reports.

In the past month, Wikileaks revealed evidence the latest acting president of Brazil, Michel Temer — installed after a contentious and highly questionable coup — has been an intelligence informant to the U.S.

While Americans continue to believe the troops always fight to preserve freedom, the PATRIOT Act, USA Freedom Act, the worsening Surveillance State, and general curbing of longstanding and natural liberties inside the United States prove otherwise. After all, if freedom really existed, would the U.S. government approve and then consistently reaffirm the right under the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) to arbitrarily and indefinitely detain U.S. citizens anywhere in the world without explanation or even counsel?

This Memorial Day, honor those who have died during military service by refusing to buy U.S. pro-war propaganda — no matter how brazen or insidiously subtle it may be. Save the lives of potential soldiers by showing them evidence that what they’re really fighting for has nothing to do with either defense or freedom.

FBI Email Exposes Attorney General Promise to Protect Clinton from CRIMINAL CHARGES

Virtually unnoticed by the majority of corporate media, on Wednesday — in a hearing before the Senate Judiciary Committee on the FBI’s oversight of an investigation of Hillary Clinton’s emails — Director James Comey revealed a murky effort as outlined in an undisclosed document by Attorney General Loretta Lynch or her associates to ensure the former presidential candidate would not be charged.

No matter what was divined during that investigation, this peculiar document apparently evinced the thwarting by Lynch and associates of any effort to hold Clinton accountable.

But Comey, mildly recalcitrant in testimony due to the classified nature of ongoing investigations, refused to reveal any details about the ostensible document — or about why Lynch would have employed such extreme protectionism on the topic of Clinton.

A report from the New York Times last month first discussed the ostensive contents of this mystery document and its implications, stating it appeared Comey and his associates harbored misgivings about the oversight of their bosses at the Justice Department — and whether or not their biases would allow for a neutral probe.

Speaking on condition of anonymity with more than 30 current and former law enforcement, congressional, and other officials, the Times found Comey’s quasi-rogue attitude toward supervisory departments and tradition of bureau secrecy caused friction between the DOJ and FBI — and extended specifically to his direct boss, Lynch.

Lynch, the Times inquiry found, refused even to allow Comey to publicly term the probe of Clinton an “investigation” — over fears such semantics would prejudice the public against the former secretary of state.

“His misgivings were only fueled by the discovery last year of a document written by a Democratic operative that seemed — at least in the eyes of Mr. Comey and his aides — to raise questions about her independence. In a bizarre example of how tangled the F.B.I. investigations had become, the document had been stolen by Russian hackers,” the Times reported.

Of course, the theory Russian hackers actively subverted the U.S. presidential election — enjoining willing and tacit participants in a scheme to both leak information and insert pro-Russian, anti-Clinton propaganda — has never been unassailably proven.

Nevertheless, the Times reports officials from the U.S. Intelligence Community were, at times, privy to information hacked by The Russians — and even received a cache of hacked documents for perusal.

That Lynch, or someone close to her, intended to undertake a Herculean effort to ensure Hillary Clinton would survive the crucial probe over wrongdoings and misbehavior — as putatively revealed in this undisclosed, explosive document — comprised one bit of information seen by the Russians, Comey worried. Continued the Times report,

“The document, which has been described as both a memo and an email, was written by a Democratic operative who expressed confidence that Ms. Lynch would keep the Clinton investigation from going too far, according to several former officials familiar with the document.

“Read one way, it was standard Washington political chatter. Read another way, it suggested that a political operative might have insight into Ms. Lynch’s thinking.

“Normally, when the F.B.I. recommends closing a case, the Justice Department agrees and nobody says anything. The consensus in both places was that the typical procedure would not suffice in this instance, but who would be the spokesman?

“The document complicated that calculation, according to officials. If Ms. Lynch announced that the case was closed, and Russia leaked the document, Mr. Comey believed it would raise doubts about the independence of the investigation.”

Even the very existence of this damning document has never been proven — perhaps due to its incendiary contents.

At Wednesday’s hearing, Republican Senator Chuck Grassley referenced the New York Times’ article in questioning Comey, stating it “reportedly provided assurances that Attorney General Lynch would protect Secretary Clinton by making sure the FBI investigation ‘didn’t go too far.’”

“How, and when, did you first learn of this document? Also, who sent it and who received it?” Grassley queried the FBI chief.

“That’s not a question I can answer in this forum, Mr. Chairman, because it would call for a classified response,” Comey stymied. “I have briefed leadership of the intelligence committees on that particular issue, but I can’t talk about it here.”

Grassley, not content at the stonewall tactic, pressed further in a similar vein, asking,

“What steps did the FBI take to determine whether Attorney General Lynch had actually given assurances that the political fix was in no matter what? Did the FBI interview the person who wrote the email? If not, why not?”

Comey balked, however, refusing on the same grounds his answer would be considered classified — and maintained that position, even when Grassley noted the FBI had yet to answer the Committee’s request to view the contentious document, described occasionally as an email, replying,

“I’m not confirming there was an email, sir. I can’t — the subject is classified and in an appropriate forum I’d be happy to brief you on it. But I can’t do it in an open hearing.”

Lynch’s apparent loyalty to Clinton came into sharp focus on a number of occasions — including in a private meeting on an airport tarmac between herself and former President Bill Clinton — amid the ongoing investigation of Secretary Clinton, which Lynch at least semantically opposed.

Senator John Cornyn, in questioning Comey, pointed to both the unrevealed email or document and the tarmac meeting that exploded international ire for its brazen indiscretion, stating,

“[I]t was the former attorney general Loretta Lynch, who up until that meeting with President Clinton, was the person responsible for making the decision whether to convene a grand jury involving the allegations against Secretary Clinton. And it was former attorney general Loretta Lynch who apparently forbade you from using the word investigation. Indeed, if the New York Times story is true, a Democratic operative expressed confidence that the former attorney general would keep that investigation from going very far.”

READ MORE:  BREAKING: FBI Makes Stunning Reversal, Reopens Clinton Investigation After Discovery of New Documents

With the FBI still looking into the campaigns and communications of Clinton, the document in question — and its likely damning contents pegging the U.S. Attorney General responsible for abating efforts to levy charges as needed against the former secretary of state — could prove combustible, if not detrimental, to assumed neutrality of high-level investigators in preeminent law enforcement agencies.

James Comey maintains the bureau “made right decisions” in its investigations, no matter the alleged ambivalence from his boss, Loretta Lynch — but, in order to earn the trust of Congress and the American public, it would behoove the FBI or any other entity in possession of the startling document to reveal its contents to the world.

Until then, flagrant and surreptitious stonewalling of the FBI’s probe, as controvertible then as at present, will paint the top law enforcement agency’s efforts against Clinton as an impotent remnant of failed presidential aspirations — but further evidence that family’s dynasty had been gifted impunity of steel from its nascent days in Arkansas.

Judge Nap: FBI Just Released “Smoking Gun” Documents on Clinton

While millions of Americans were otherwise occupied with football on Sunday, the FBI discreetly released hundreds of additional documents pertaining to its investigation of Hillary Clinton — the contents of which analyst and legal expert Judge Andrew Napolitano described as “the smoking gun if there ever was one.”

Indeed the nature of the documents and the method in which they were communicated might be sufficient to bring charges against the former secretary of state and failed presidential candidate.

In an interview with FOX Business’ Lou Dobbs on Monday night, Napolitano asserted the 300 documents — released by an unknown source inside the FBI — evince a tremendously divergent characterization of Clinton’s handling of sensitive information than portrayed by intelligence agencies and the Democratic establishment.

“The highly sensitive nature,” the judge told Dobbs, “was 301 pages of emails, which Mrs. Clinton sent on a regular basis to a non-government person. We have reason to believe that was Sid Blumenthal — with whom she emailed on a daily and regular basis, several times a day.”

Judge Napolitano explained, what “[President-elect] Donald Trump feared and argued during the campaign, and what rogue FBI agents who profoundly disagreed with Director Comey’s decision to recommend against indictment” had been saying all along, is actually true.

And “the information Mrs. Clinton regularly sent to [the unnamed individual] was hacked by foreign intelligence agencies of countries unfriendly to us, and friendly to us — and sources tell FOX News those were Russia, China [both] unfriendly, and Israel, friendly.”

On page 235 in the latest cache of documents, as The Free Thought Project reported, “the FBI admits the Office of Inspector General found classified materials on Clinton’s server. This means the FBI knew about this leak well before anything was made public — and while Clinton was publicly denying it the entire time.”

Napolitano continued, the new information will be “extremely relevant in this time period,” as Senator Jeff Sessions continues to be grilled in confirmation hearings before the Senate Judiciary Committee for a potential cabinet role as U.S. Attorney General because — pertaining to the freshly released documents — he will undoubtedly be asked, “what will you do with this?”

Dobbs asserted pertinent questions now arise, such as why these had not been released previously, and “why did the FBI director have such a struggle — a Hamlet act — that persisted over a number of months?

“And this evidence … makes it clear that his last judgment on the matter of prosecution was utterly in error, does it not?”

“You’re absolutely correct,” the judge replied, “this is the smoking gun if ever there was one — this ramps up the case for her prosecution.”

However, there are timely caveats to consider with President Obama’s administration in its eleventh hour — and the imperative to prosecute legitimately criminal activity doesn’t necessarily preclude other considerations, including a last-minute pardon for Clinton.

Napolitano noted, however, that if Obama chooses not to pardon Clinton, “the pressure on the attorney general, from the FBI agents who conducted the investigation — who probably posted this stuff last night during the Giants-Packers game — will be very difficult for him to resist.”

Additional germane but unanswerable aspects concerning the publication of the FBI documents tell of the murkiness of the entire investigation of Hillary Clinton and her use of a personal server.

Dobbs posited that if the person or persons who published the information came from inside the FBI and acted in a rogue capacity, the intent might have been to ensure an indictment as soon as possible. But the responsible party could also be an Obama administration insider leaking information for the sake of muddying the waters — or perhaps to provide the impetus for a presidential pardon.

As yet, there is no way to tell. However, as the judge added,

“Did Director Comey know about this at the time he exonerated Mrs. Clinton on July 5th, last summer? Did Director Comey tell President-elect Trump about this, when he met with him at Trump Tower last week? Did Director Comey know that this was going to be released when it was, and why was it released during a football game? Was it to gin it up for the senators to ask Senator Sessions about?”

Although Judge Napolitano laments the motivations and players remain shielded now, it’s possible further indicators will come out as Sessions testifies — but as of now, that hasn’t happened.

Some inside the Democratic establishment have criticized the investigation of Clinton as baseless and likened it to a witch hunt — but as this new cache of information reveals, feasible grounds for prosecution have existed this entire time in the transmission and compromise of classified information.

Will Michelle Obama Be The Replacement Nominee If The FBI Email Investigation Ends Hillary Clinton’s Campaign?

“And I certainly hope that Michelle Obama does not become the nominee if Hillary Clinton has to step aside, because Donald Trump would have an exceedingly difficult time defeating her.”

I realize that this headline must sound extremely bizarre, but in this article I will explain why this could actually happen. We have just learned that the FBI has obtained a search warrant that will enable the agency to examine approximately 650,000 emails that are sitting on electronic devices owned by Huma Abedin and her estranged husband Anthony Weiner. Now that the FBI is going through these emails, it is unlikely but still possible that a decision about whether or not to charge Hillary Clinton with a crime could be made by November 8th. Of course the most likely scenario is that Hillary Clinton will not be indicted before election day and that Americans will be voting with this scandal hanging ominously over the Clinton campaign. But if the FBI does quickly take action, it is possible that Hillary Clinton could be forced from the race before election day, and that would require the Democrats to come up with a new candidate.

In fact, there are already calls in the mainstream media for Clinton to willingly remove herself from the race. For example, the following comes from a Chicago Tribune article entitled “Democrats should ask Clinton to step aside“…

So what should the Democrats do now?

If ruling Democrats hold themselves to the high moral standards they impose on the people they govern, they would follow a simple process:

They would demand that Mrs. Clinton step down, immediately, and let her vice presidential nominee, Sen. Tim Kaine of Virginia, stand in her place.

Democrats should say, honestly, that with a new criminal investigation going on into events around her home-brew email server from the time she was secretary of state, having Clinton anywhere near the White House is just not a good idea.

But what the author of that article does not understand is that Tim Kaine would not automatically take her place if Clinton steps down before the election. In a previous article, I included a quote from a U.S. News & World Report article that explained what would happen if Hillary Clinton was removed from the Democratic ticket for some reason prior to November 8th…

If Clinton were to fall off the ticket, Democratic National Committee members would gather to vote on a replacement. DNC members acted as superdelegates during this year’s primary and overwhelmingly backed Clinton over boat-rocking socialist Sen. Bernie Sanders of Vermont.

DNC spokesman Mark Paustenbach says there currently are 445 committee members – a number that changes over time and is guided by the group’s bylaws, which give membership to specific officeholders and party leaders and hold 200 spots for selection by states, along with an optional 75 slots DNC members can choose to fill.

But the party rules for replacing a presidential nominee merely specify that a majority of members must be present at a special meeting called by the committee chairman. The meeting would follow procedures set by the DNC Rules and Bylaws Committee and proxy voting would not be allowed.

So if this email scandal forced Hillary Clinton to exit the race at the last minute, a majority of the members of the Democratic National Committee would gather to select a new nominee.

Who would they choose?

Let’s take a look at the top five options…

#1 Tim Kaine

He would seem to be an obvious choice since he is Hillary Clinton’s running mate. But to win a national campaign you need to have name recognition, and most Americans outside of the state of Virginia have very little familiarity with him.

And at this point he has proven to have very little popularity on the campaign trail. In fact, attendance at many of his rallies in key swing states can be measured in the dozens.

So to me it seems unlikely that the DNC would select Kaine as the replacement nominee.

#2 Joe Biden

Vice-President Joe Biden has far more name recognition than Tim Kaine does, and in recent days he has been touting how he believes that he would have actually won the nomination if he would have decided to run…

Vice President Joe Biden said in a recent interview that he believed he could have beat former secretary of state Hillary Clinton for the Democratic presidential nomination had he pursued it.

Biden was asked in an interview with CNN Saturday if news that the FBI was re-opening their criminal probe into Clinton’s use of a private email server while secretary of state made him second-guess his decision last year not to run.

But according to the vice president, the short answer is “no.” The only thing that kept him from running, Biden said, was the recent death of his son, Beau.

Unfortunately for Biden, he suffers from many of the same things that Kaine does.

Biden is boring, he is not very good on the campaign trail, and he doesn’t have the sort of charisma that would motivate people to go to the polls in large numbers.

Biden would probably represent the “safest” choice for the Democrats, but he might not be a winning choice.

#3 Bernie Sanders

Bernie Sanders would seem to be a logical choice since he was the runner-up to Hillary Clinton, but the truth is that there are a lot of things working against Bernie Sanders.

First of all, he does not have any real loyalty to the Democrats. He has previously operated as an independent, and he expressed a desire to return to independent status once the campaign was over.

Secondly, the Democratic establishment very much dislikes him, and that plays a huge role in decisions such as this.

Thirdly, Democratic insiders fear that he would be “another McGovern” and would get absolutely wiped out in a general election.

So even though he is very popular with the radical left, it appears that Sanders would be the least likely choice on this list.

#4 Elizabeth Warren

Elizabeth Warren would be very popular with the “Bernie Sanders” wing of the party, and she would enable the party to replace Hillary Clinton with another woman.

So she is definitely a possibility.

But she does lack name recognition, and just like Sanders there would be concern that the Republicans would frame her candidacy as “another McGovern” because of her far left policies.

#5 Michelle Obama

One recent survey found that 67 percent of all Democrats would rather have a third term for Obama than a first term for Hillary Clinton.

And these days Barack Obama’s approval rating is running anywhere from +9 to +11.

So the thought of another Obama in the White House is not as far-fetched as you might think.

Michelle Obama has better name recognition than anyone else on this list, and she is generally very well-liked by the American people. And she has received a tremendous amount of praise for her work on the campaign trail recently. For instance, her recent speech in New Hampshire was lauded as “the most influential speech of the 2016 campaign” in a recent MSN article entitled “In this campaign, Michelle Obama became more than just another political voice“…

The speech, amplified by timing and met with an enthusiastic response, cemented Obama’s place as a star of the presidential race and put a defining stroke not just on how women view Trump, but also on herself as a voice of moral authority. Three months before leaving the White House, she already is among the ranks of public figures who transcend politics and title.

“When you rise to a level like that, you see how much weight your words carry,” said Anita McBride, former chief of staff to Laura Bush and executive in residence at the School of Public Affairs at American University. “We know she didn’t like politics. But she was impassioned by the language that was used, and she feels compelled to speak out. People listen to her.”

If I were the Democrats, Michelle Obama is the one that I would select if a replacement nominee was needed, because she would give them the very best chance of winning against Donald Trump.

Of course the Obamas are just as radical as Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren, but the American people have become quite comfortable with them at this point.

And I certainly hope that Michelle Obama does not become the nominee if Hillary Clinton has to step aside, because Donald Trump would have an exceedingly difficult time defeating her.

In the final analysis, none of this is probably going to matter anyway because it is unlikely that the FBI will move quickly enough to force Hillary Clinton out before election day, but there is still a small chance that it could actually happen.

And if it does happen, it is going to turn politics in America completely upside down.