A Clinton indictment, and a SCOTUS instruction to the 5th Circuit on TX Voter ID

-- One week from today, Clintonites, and your quiet misery and stoic endurance of the defaming of your standard-bearer will all be over.  Unless she catches an indictment, that is.  And if that happens, it really goes clusterfuck.  This dude -- a former DOJ employee when now-FBI Director James Comey served as deputy AG in the W Bush administration -- says essentially the same thing I did a few weeks ago.  The notable difference being that in the wake of the State Dept. IG report released last week, he does not believe she can escape a federal grand jury's verdict.

No, her self-serving email set-up was not “allowed” under the State Department’s rules.  No, she was not “permitted” to use a personal email system exclusively as she did.  No, what she did was hardly just a matter of her “personal convenience.”  No, there is no evidence that any State Department attorney (other than perhaps Secretary Clinton herself) ever gave “legal approval” to any part of her special email system. No, everything she did was not “fully above board” or in compliance with the “letter and spirit of the rules,” far from it.  Yes, she was indeed required by the FRA to maintain all official emails in an official system for proper review, delineation, and retention upon her departure.  Yes, her private server equipment was in fact the subject of multiple attempted intrusion attempts (i.e., hacks), including by foreign nations.  The list goes on and on.  (Note that this does not even include Ms. Clinton’s many serious “misstatements” about her handling of classified or potentially classified information.)

Now, even the general public is left with the unavoidable conclusion that Ms. Clinton either is ignorant of the law (which too many people know is not so) or else feels blithely untethered to reality in a way that necessarily serves her secretive interests regardless of any truth — the technical legal term for which is “pathological lying,” or perhaps merely “psychosis.”  Not a pretty picture for a voter of any stripe at any stage of the electoral process.

I still can't see it.  Nor can I see this scenario for selecting a replacement presidential nominee should I be wrong and an indictment happens.

So what you must contemplate, as a leader of the Democratic Party, is the very real possibility of your likely presidential candidate actually being indicted, on criminal charges, sometime between now and, say, (a) the time of the convention at the end of July; (b) the time of the general election in early November; or (c) Inauguration Day in January.  Which possibility would you prefer?

Obviously, the answer might well be possibility (d):  No indictment at all.  But if that were not a realistic possibility, and remembering that your absolute imperative in this election cycle is to avoid at all costs ending up with a President Donald Trump, your preference is clear:  You want a Democrat other than either Clinton or Sanders to go up against Trump in November, unorthodox as that might now sound.

In short, you want a Biden/Kerry ticket, a Kerry/Biden one (less likely), or a ticket with either one of them (preferably Vice President Biden) together with whomever Hillary Clinton picks as her running mate in July.

An already-chosen running mate?  Yes, her running mate, chosen by her as the presidential nominee — because you want Clinton to be replaced as your nominee (i.e., after the convention), but not with Senator Sanders, for all the reasons stated above.

That was a fun and fanciful read, but I remain of the mind that Clinton skates, becomes the nominee, and is elected president.  YMMV.

Update: This doesn't mean as much as they think it means.  The author of the original, Frank Huguenard, is fairly well-known crackpot (but Snopes should get his name spelled correctly).

-- It doesn't happen much any more that an op-ed outside the Lone Star State weighs in on the lavatory of democracy that is Texas, our Texas, but the WaPo did, and the headline is 'Texas Voter ID chicanery'.  It's a worthwhile rehash of where we are at this moment, but here's the nut graf.

It remains unclear whether the Texas law will apply in the November elections, but the Supreme Court, apparently eager for clarity by then, instructed a federal appeals court in New Orleans to render its judgment by July 20. 

If the en banc review upholds the law, then that decision will be immediately repealed to an 8-member SCOTUS.  No bets taken on that verdict.