The 2016 Presidential election was unlike any other in modern history and for different reasons for the two major political parties. For the Democrats, it came down to two likely candidates- Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders. In the GOP, they established a record for nominees with 18 going into the primaries. A series of debates winnowed the field before a single vote was cast.
As they entered the primary season, Donald Trump emerged as the frontrunner in polls. Through a series of rallies and his grand entrance into the campaign as he descended the golden escalator at Trump Tower, most people dismissed Trump’s candidacy as a publicity stunt.
By the end of March, 2016 Trump emerged the front runner in the GOP primaries. Although Ted Cruz won the Iowa caucuses, Trump came roaring back by winning the next three contests in New Hampshire, Nevada, and South Carolina, then winning seven of 11 states on Super Tuesday. Ted Cruz and former Ohio Governor John Kasich soldiered on despite lacking a path to the nomination. The only hope to stop Trump was a brokered convention or an alternative to Trump, but neither materialized.
On the Democrat side, the story was different. The field there was not big- only six to start, but three dropped out before any primary or caucus and one during the primaries leaving only two people- Hillary Clinton and Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders.
The controversy between the two is a quirk of the Democrat Party’s nomination procedures. The New Hampshire primary in 2016 is indicative of the dynamic which involves “superdelegates.”
In that primary, Sanders defeated Clinton by taking 60% of the vote and a greater than 20-point spread. Yet, when the all-important convention delegates were awarded, Sanders walked away with a minimum of 13 and Clinton with a minimum of 15 delegates. New Hampshire has 24 “pledged” delegates determined by the vote. Sanders took 13 of these delegates and Clinton took 9. However, the state has eight superdelegates who are insiders in the state party who are free to support whoever they wish. Six of them were already pledged to Hillary Clinton. If the others supported Sanders, the best he could do is tie Clinton in delegates coming out of New Hampshire despite winning 60% of the vote.
Perhaps Sanders was wrong to rely too heavily on democracy to choose a winner in the 2016 Democrat Party sweepstakes, but the fact remains that it became known that Hillary Clinton began to court and curry favor with the superdelegates long before any vote was cast or any debate occurred. We know that this politicking by Clinton likely began in August 2015 or sooner. The Clinton campaign was merging with the DNC which is supposed to be impartial in the nomination process.
With Hillary Clinton the Democrat candidate who, through chicanery, held off Bernie Sanders, and Donald Trump, the Republican candidate who held off the establishment of his party emerging as opponents, three events converged. The first was the fact that Hillary Clinton was the focus of an FBI investigation regarding the use of a private server while she was Secretary of State codenamed MidYear Exam (MYE), which will be discussed in the next series of diary entries. The second was the alleged hacking of the DNC. The third event was the emerging narrative of Russian interference in the election which some alleged was designed to benefit Donald Trump, and an apparent on-going targeting of Trump that predates his entry into the race and proceeded on steroids after he emerged the candidate.
The apparatus of the Democrats and of the Obama administration had become quite adept at fomenting division abroad and toppling foreign governments. Their miscues in Egypt drove from power a reliable ally in Hosni Mubarek and managed to for a time install a government run by the Muslim Brotherhood. In Libya, they toppled the regime of Qaddafi who posed no threat to US interests. Their policy of regime change in the Middle East ran into resistance in Syria and ushered in a deadly civil war and fomented the rise of ISIL. In Ukraine, the Maidan Revolution toppled a government there, but they failed to consider the consequences which resulted in Russia annexing Crimea and waging a stealth war in eastern Ukraine.
It should then come as no surprise that the Obama administration and the Democrats, aided by unelected bureaucrats, would work to thwart and deter the election of someone who would not only undo these things, but possibly expose them. If, perchance, they failed in those efforts, they would work to stymy, resist, and undermine Trump if the impossible ever happened- Hillary Clinton lost the general election. It was “all hands on deck” to wage the battle. Trump was running not only against Clinton, but a cabal of Deep State operatives hiding behind a veil of righteousness, and a willing accomplice in the form of the media.
It is perhaps the latter- the media- that is most to blame. By the end of the Obama administration, many journalists had concluded that Obama was the worst President- even worse than Nixon- when it came to dealing with them. Yet, they pushed Obama’s and Clinton’s narratives regardless. Some brave people in the media like Sharryl Atkisson, John Solomon, Sara Carter, Tom Fitton, and Mollie Hemingway soldiered on, but their numbers were few.
Before looking at the allegations of Russian collusion and the lengths the DNC, Clinton campaign, and Obama administration went to in their efforts targeting Trump and his campaign, we need to step back and look at the investigation of Clinton’s private server because it became a major campaign issue in 2016.
Next: The private server investigation