Rothschild-Owned Associated Press Prematurely Crowned Clinton Before California Primary, Maybe Because They Were Angry about Their In-law Zac Goldsmith Losing the London Mayor's Race?
I have arrived at a very interesting and almost too logical explanation about the Associated Press' perfectly timed announcement two days before the California, New Jersey, New Mexico, South Dakota and North Dakota primaries, that Clinton had the nomination wrapped up.
No matter what the real cause was, this was one of the worst examples of culpable and unforgivable journalistic malpractice in the past 50 years. Did it all stem from the London mayoral race defeat of billionaire Zac Goldsmith married into the Rothschild Family by Sadiq Khan, a Pakistani Muslim lawyer, son of a bus driver and a seamstress? Remember that Associated Press was purchased in the last 20 years by Reuters, and Reuters has been owned by the Rothschilds since the 1800's.
First, this background timeline and discussion sometimes condensed and sometimes quoting from the Washington Post's outstanding article by Philip Bump, by far the most thorough I have seen on this byzantine subject of the Associated Press-Clinton coronation.
How AP Named Hillary
Everyone presumed that Hillary Clinton would sooner rather than later be anointed as the victor in the primary process after New Jersey voted last Tuesday.
Even MSNBC announced in a televised discussion with Sanders' campaign manager, Jeff Weaver, that that was precisely what they were going to do, despite the pesky fact that California's polls would still being open for several important more hours. Weaver, as well as Sanders supporters, wanted the media to wait on such an announcement until after the polls closed in California later Tuesday night. Only fair, right? Not in 2016! Nothing fair about these primaries!
Everyone knew that some kind of declaration had to be forthcoming; Clinton was within a few dozen delegates of winning, including winning through the popular vote plus "her" super delegates, and New Jersey would put her over the top.
Then, Monday evening, the Associated Press sent out an announcement: Clinton was already there, based on some kind of spurious and vague conversations between delegates and the AP's reporter Stephen Ohlemacher. Just before California and the other four that Tuesday, Clinton won two more Democratic contests that drew her nearer to clinching the nomination—the Virgin Islands and (more important) Puerto Rico.
Ostensibly (and I have grave doubts about all of this, so I present this solemnly as what I think is the Associated Press' manufactured version): on Monday morning, she needed 23 more delegates to hit the 2,383-delegate mark that constitutes a majority for the convention. She had 1,812 pledged delegates and commitments from more than 500 super delegates, but she was a bit short of the threshold.
On Monday, Associated Press' Ohlemacher (in conversations on the telephone to super delegates, of course, as yet unnamed) received commitments from enough super delegates to put Clinton over the top. With 23 more super delegates in hand, Clinton had reached that magic 2,383 mark, so AP took the big leap. Understandably, this mercurial, arbitrary, and capricious determination prompted more confusion than was already expected.
I am a journalist and an art dealer, and I love a true scoop just as much any others in that dying breed, the crusading journalists, but something about this to me resoundingly stinks as perfidy and misrepresentation.
How was the AP sure that those super delegates wouldn't change their minds? Why release new totals the day before the critical primaries in California?
How was the AP sure that those super delegates wouldn't change their minds? Why release new totals the day before the critical primaries in California? Who were the super delegates that made the difference? The Washington Post and its did our best to answer those questions, and more questions that followed: How did the AP know the super delegates won't change their minds?
Overnight, the Associated Press published an explanation of how it collected those commitments, here excerpted at length: The AP surveyed the super delegates throughout the primary season to track whom they planned to support at the July convention. If a super delegate told the AP he or she planned to unequivocally support a candidate at the convention, that was added to the candidate's tally. Those who declined to answer, or said they have yet to make a decision or express any reservations, went on the list as uncommitted.
Remember who these super delegates are: Pew Research broke down their demographics: more than half of the 714 super delegates are members of the Democratic National Committee, and another 261 are members of Congress or governors. These are irrevocably and permanently entrenched members of the Democratic establishment. The reason super delegates exist is to be able to exercise their veto over the errant will of the common people, the vulgar masses, if the power structure feels that to be appropriate.
In this case, the preference of the establishment jumped the gun and determined by pressure exerted through the Associated Press, which was then picked up by hundreds of newspapers across America on election day, especially on Tuesday morning, presumably and superficially at least aligned with the will of the voters: Clinton will end the primary contest with more pledged delegates, more votes and more victories.
Super delegates were added to the process in the 1984 presidential election because the Democrat power structure was angry that a renegade outsider like Jimmy Carter could become president. How better to fix this ghastly situation than create a buffer zone of super delegates who could anytime in the near or distant future shut down such candidacies once and for all, whenever they might pop up, a veritable coalition of power to prevent populist candidates.
But why announce a winner on Monday? Just to give themselves a scoop on what they had precipitated? To make someone upstairs happy, or maybe to follow someone upstairs' orders? (That is what I believe happened), or was it just to help the Clinton campaign? (See also Rob Kall's quick-link article on Guccifer and the leaked emails: Guccifer Leaked Emails Show DNC Colluded with Media to Push Clinton Nomination
The Rothschilds' Connection
I deduce that several of the Rothschilds had to have been very unhappy and "mortified," as the British put it, about their own familial loss a few weeks earlier of one of their own to an upstart candidate from, in their privileged minds, an unacceptably lower class.
I can surmise that the Rothschilds might have silently considered what they could do to toss the most important primary to Clinton, and thus out of the reach of that Polish Brooklyn Jewish Vermont Senator who had made so many American billionaires feel besieged and angry.
After all, what is a mere White House when the UK billionaires have to stick up for their American billionaire friends and co-investors, that brotherhood of Billionaires and Hundred Millionaires, and of course Wall Street and New York, who also felt that they had so much to lose with the unexpected populist successes of Bernie Sanders. Would that be legal? Certainly. Ethical? Of course not. Other dirty tricks in this election are NOT at all legal.
Who were the candidates in the race for Lord Mayor of London, as background for me to make such a supposition? Thanks to the New York Times for this facts in this comparison before the election: Zac Goldsmith vs. Sadiq Khan
Zac: Son of Sir James Goldsmith, a billionaire financier, magazine tycoon and politician, and Annabel Goldsmith, a socialite and nightclub promoter, 41 years old, studied at Eton College, the nation's most elite private boarding school, but expelled for drug use, Member of Parliament for Richmond Park, in Southwest London, since 2010, environmental activist, proponent of local and organic food, married to Alice Rothschild, they have two children. Mr. Goldsmith's brother was once married to Ms. Rothschild's sister.
Who is Alice Rothschild? in her own words from her website: an obstetrician-gynecologist who has worked in the health care reform and women's movements for many years, since 1997 she has focused her energy on understanding the Israeli/Palestinian conflict.
Sadiq Khan, the Labour Party mayoral candidate for London, son of a bus driver and a seamstress, immigrants from Pakistan, grew up in public housing in Wandsworth, a borough of Southwest London that has several heavily immigrant neighborhoods, 45 years old, studied law at the University of North London, member of Parliament for Tooting, in South London, since 2005; was minister of state for transportation from 2009 to 2010 under Prime Minister Gordon Brown, lawyer in employment discrimination, police brutality, civil rights and other social justice issues, married to Saadiya Ahmed, a fellow lawyer. Author: Fairness Not Favours: How to Reconnect with British Muslims.
What might seem an outrageous and unethical exercise of power to most is no more than a twist of a rapier or a deft smashing backhand in a tennis game on the private family clay courts, or one of those royal hand wavings that princesses make, all from the wrist. In short, this was probably nothing more than a brief exercise in power politics that had to be perfectly timed to work, carefully kept secret until deployed, but having been deployed, became a tour de force that robbed Bernie Sanders of California.
Not Over 'til the Fat Lady Sings
Of course, Bernie and his supporters know it is not over yet, not until the convention and maybe even the Electoral College voting, and certainly not even half over if the courts were to rule on all of the documented fraud, purging, vote "flipping," and a host of other dirty tricks in these 2016 primary heists.
In a statement, AP Executive Editor Kathleen Carroll suggested this:
"By Monday evening, 571 super delegates had told us unequivocally that they intend to vote for Clinton at the convention. Adding that number to the delegates awarded to Clinton in primary and caucus voting to date gave her the number needed to be the presumptive nominee. That is news, and reporting the news is what we do. We've been chasing this story for months. We started surveying the super delegates late last year. We use reporters from all over the country. Mostly it would be state reporters in each state, calling the delegates in their states. Some of us in Washington had done some follow-up. As Hillary Clinton was getting closer to 2,383, we ramped up our efforts to reach out to them to find out if any of these folks were ready to commit to either candidate."
AP Reporter Stephen Ohlemacher somewhat dubiously explained:
"We only added people to the count if they unequivocally tell us that they are going to vote for whichever candidate at the convention. I've had people say, 'Well, I'm 95 percent there.' And I say, 'Well, get back in touch when you're 100 percent there.' "
This process entirely depended on when super delegates make up their minds, and since so many super delegates are political actors, obviously, there might be some unknown person's strategy at work in the timing of how and when super delegates told the AP about their commitments.
The next question is WHO put Clinton over the top? The Intercept's Glenn Greenwald, who supports Sanders, interpreted AP's announcement thus:
"AP claims that super delegates who had not previously announced their intentions privately told AP reporters that they intended to vote for Clinton, bringing her over the threshold. AP is concealing the identity of the decisive super-delegates who said this."
The implication, made clear by the headline of the piece ("Perfect End to Democratic Primary: Anonymous Super delegates Declare Winner Through Media"), is that those super delegates withheld their commitments until they saw a politically opportune moment.
What Was the Fallout?
On Monday, they saw it, and kicked the mechanism the AP uses into a big surprising and perfectly functioning very high gear. We can't know for sure the extent to which this was a deliberate ploy on the part of Clinton supporters to step on Tuesday's voting results.
It immensely benefited Clinton, since Sanders's younger base of voters who planned to come out to the polls on Tuesday might no longer do so—and Clinton's older base would be less affected, and, besides, there is the bottom line that many California sheeple would then be likely to vote for the "winner"; those without ideas or principles would be likely to do just that, just to be able to say that they voted for the winner....
Sanders' argument for earning the support of super delegates would be significantly undercut. The leak was definitely a double win for Clinton—which may have been exactly what the super delegates that tipped had hoped all along: anything to help Hillary! Once again, AP will not clarify which super delegates were the ones who informed the AP about their decisions on Monday. This all could have happened anyway.
Clinton IS the Democratic establishment, which has proven its capacity and willingness to push around the media at all levels, but has she actually won a majority of delegates from voting and more overall votes than Sanders, when you consider all of the states whose primaries saw documented fraud, manipulation of voting machines, purging, and vote "flipping"?
In my efforts to determine what actually happened with the voter purging in Brooklyn and how and whether it was orchestrated by powerful allies of Hillary Clinton, I asked the News Editor of Associated Press New York City, David Caruso, how many times had AP talked with the two ladies at the Board of Election and what they had revealed about who pressured, bribed, or forced them to do the purgings (a rather central question for anyone with even a slightly investigating kind of mind, wouldn't you agree?). He replied that AP had never talked with them at all.
Hmmm. Maybe they weren't supposed to look into such glaring questions as part of an effort to keep this swept under the rug, so that people would forget about their hijacked New York Primary? Think on a grand scale, and you might conclude that all of this and more was entirely intentional, but now part of that elusive history....
Rothchilds and Rockefellers
Early in the campaign, I recall a meme about the Rothschilds and the Rockefellers running the show, especially in the presidential primaries. About twenty years ago, I tried to start a University of Peace Santa Fe, and wrote to all kinds of rich and powerful folks, plus many inspiring humanitarian leaders, including Gandhi's grandson and Albert Einstein's granddaughter.
Several of the Rothschilds wrote back encouraging letters. One of the last of the Habsburgs, Otto von Habsburg, the last Crown Prince of Austria-Hungary from 1916 until the dissolution of the empire in 1918, wrote back an intelligent and thoughtful letter agreeing to be one of the honorary advisers and recommending that we have extensive curriculum in Religion. After all, they ruled most of Europe for 600 years. My concepts of Religion were the holy precepts of Gandhi, and I am sure his were the rulings of the Church throughout the Holy Roman Empire, but religion was vital to both him and to me, just different religions.
I have known many Rockefellers in person, including one who lived in Santa Fe, a brilliant journalist who owned the Santa Fe Reporter for many years. All decent people, all between somewhat wealthy and staggeringly wealthy, but not obsessed with manipulating most of the tides of world history, like King Canute commanding the waves to go back out.
I don't for a moment claim to have any insights into the internal machinations or planning of the Rothschild family, but add it up, mix the known facts into the structure of what actually chronologically happened, and you can see that it would be very easy for them to throw an election to anyone but Bernie Sanders, especially immediately after a stinging loss of the London Mayoralty, a much more important political position in the UK than Mayor of New York is in the USA.
It helps a lot just to glimpse some of the truth, even if it is a bit sketchy at this point. Bernie is fond of saying: "they have the billionaires but we have the people," and we, the people, will hopefully prevail. There is too much at stake for Bernie Sanders to lose.