Fruit of the poisonous tree n. in criminal law, the doctrine that evidence discovered due to information found through illegal search or other unconstitutional means (such as a forced confession) may not be introduced by a prosecutor. The theory is that the tree (original illegal evidence) is poisoned and thus taints what grows from it. — law.com
Hillary Clinton cheated. She cheated in collusion with the leadership of the Democratic National Committee in a conspiracy to undermine the success of, and discourage support for, the presidential campaign of fellow Democrat Bernie Sanders.
For those who scoff at the notion that Sanders ever had a shot at collecting more votes than Hillary, I would remind you of the “scoffs, guffaws and ridicule” heaped upon the candidacy of one Donald Trump. Political preferences aside, Trump emerged as an outsider who “took it to” the well-financed GOP establishment standard bearers (Jeb Bush, Mike Huckabee, etc., etc.), and showed the world that such a challenge was possible, even if not probable. How ironic that the richest presidential candidate since John Kennedy won his nomination spending a fraction of the money spent by his opponents.
Of course the Trump victory is something of a miracle because the Republican leadership didn’t cheat the process the way the Democrat leadership most certainly did. The Wikileaks releases were as damning as Monica’s stained blue dress when it came to establishing “fact vs. rumor” status of these allegations. Senator Sanders himself said the released secret email proving the “fix was in” did nothing more than confirm what he already knew: The political leadership in his own party was not interested in anything or anyone that stood in the way of Hillary’s ascension, and damn the poor souls who attempted to stand in the way of her coronation.
They cheated. They got caught. And at least the party leadership offered a mild mea culpa for their end of the arrangement:
“On behalf of everyone at the DNC, we want to offer a deep and sincere apology to Senator Sanders, his supporters, and the entire Democratic Party for the inexcusable remarks made over email,” says the statement, released by interim chair Donna Brazile and other DNC leaders. “These comments do not reflect the values of the DNC or our steadfast commitment to neutrality during the nominating process…and (we are) taking appropriate action to ensure it never happens again.”
The architect of this unholy arrangement, Congresswoman Debbie Wasserman “I know nothing, I see nothing” Schultz, has been run off the dais of her own state delegation meeting, and into virtual seclusion as a result of the revelations. Though she resigned the position from which she conducted this hideous perversion of the nomination process, she does so only at the end of this week’s Dem convention in Philadelphia. Even Stephen Colbert compared that to “discovering a turd in the punchbowl, and then announcing the bowl will be cleaned out at the end of the party… so drink up.”
A moment of clarity and fairness at the hands of Colbert, imagine the Hell out of that.
Oh yes, Hillary did make sure everyone knew she was being retained in a leadership position for her ongoing campaign. So Debbie does have that.
DSW got her wrist slapped. Hillary got the nomination. Free and clear. WhoopDeeDoo.
Sidebar: If I were in the T-shirt business I would put out a shirt with DWS’s picture featuring a mock up of the “Debbie Does Dallas” port classic but renamed “Debbie Does Philly.” I would include the tagline, “Watch Debbie screw Bernie and 13 million of his supporters!”
In a conversation with 12th district Congressman Rick Allen this week, he agreed with me that Congress should look at rewarding such dishonest manipulation of the party nominating process with federal campaign matching funds. Damn straight we should! Those are taxpayer dollars going to a group, the Democratic National Committee, conducting unethical and immoral party primaries under the false pretense of an “unbiased and untainted” political process.
We should think of Clinton’s primary victory as “fruit from the poisonous tree.” It was a reward derived of highly dubious and dishonest schemes and behavior.
If there are not official sanctions, or at least such sanctions empowered in the future, what is to stop this hideous fix from being played again and again? In the meantime, give credit where credit is due. This entire scheme almost worked as well as the Corleone Family “buffer defense” in the Godfather saga. The Godfather (Hillary, in this case) always had stooges between him and the myriad criminal acts committed in his name and under his direction, so that no matter what happened, he didn’t get nailed for it.
The Clintons must be gigantic fans of that story.