>> THIS WEEK, SHAWN KING -- TODAY I BELIEVE SHAWN KING WROTE
A PIECE IN THE NEW YORK DAILY NEWS, WHICH MANY OTHERS HAVE
COVERED TOO, AND I LIKE SHAWN KING, I'M SURE YOU DO AS WELL.
>>YES, I DO.
>>BUT SHAWN KING WROTE A PIECE QUOTING CHRIS MATTHEWS ON HIS
SHOW, WHERE MATTHEWS DIDN'T APPEAR TO SUGGEST BUT SUGGESTED
THAT WHEN NEW JERSEY CLOSES, PRESUMING THAT HILLARY CLINTON
WINS NEW JERSEY AS SHE IS EXPECTED TO WIN NEW JERSEY, THAT
THEY WILL GO AHEAD AND CALL THE DEMOCRATIC RACE FOR PRESIDENT
OVER AND DECLARE HILLARY CLINTON THE PRESUMPTIVE NOMINEE, THE
NOMINEE, THEY WILL PUT SOME CHECKMARK BY HER BEFORE POLLS
HAVE CLOSED IN CALIFORNIA.
THERE IS NO NEED FOR ME TO EXPLAIN IT,
WE WILL GO TO VIDEO 2 AND ALLOW CHRISTMAS USED TO DO IT.
>>THIS IS WHAT I CALL TROUBLE, I'M ABOUT TO START.
I'M TOLD BY
THE EXPERTS ON NUMBERS AROUND HERE THAT COME JUNE 7, THE DAY
OF THE CALIFORNIA PRIMARY, WHICH YOUR CANDIDATE, I TOTALLY
UNDERSTAND, WANTS TO GET TO AND MAY HAVE A CHANCE OF KNOCKING
OFF HILLARY AT THAT EVENT, A LAST HURRAH, THAT IT IS A CLOCK
EASTERN TIME THAT NIGHT THE NETWORKS WILL BE PREPARED,
INCLUDING THIS ONE, TO ANNOUNCE THAT HILLARY HAS GOTTEN
OVER-THE-TOP AND HAS WON THE NOMINATION, WHAT WILL THAT DO TO
TURN OUT IF IT IS 5 O'CLOCK PACIFIC TIME WITH THREE MORE
HOURS TO VOTE IN CALIFORNIA?
WHO WILL BE LEAST LIKELY TO VOTE,
SANDERS PEOPLE OR HILLARY PEOPLE?
I HAVE HEARD BOTH THEORIES.
>>I
THINK IT WILL DEPRESS TURNOUT ON BOTH SIDES, WHENEVER THERE
IS NO CONTEST I THINK YOU GET DEPRESSED TURNOUT ON BOTH SIDES.
IT WILL BE AN INACCURATE DESCRIPTION OF THE STATE OF
THE RACE, FRANKLY THAT BANG
>> I WOULD GO MUCH FURTHER THAN JEFF WEAVER JUST DID.
>>IF ONLY YOU HAD A PROGRAM WHERE YOU ARE ABLE TO.
>>OH RIGHT, WE ARE ON AIR.
THE SUPERDELEGATES VOTE DURING THE
CONVENTION, THEY HAVE NOT VOTED, THEY WERE PUT UP ON THE BOARD
FROM DAY ONE BY MOST OF THE ESTABLISHMENT MEDIA, IF NOT ALL
OF THEM, JAKE TAPPER CLAIMS HE DOESN'T DO IT ON HIS PROGRAM.
OTHER THAN THAT, ALL OF THE NETWORKS SEEM TO DO IT.
I TALKED
ABOUT IT YESTERDAY, THE PRESS DOESN'T HAVE A LIBERAL OR
CONSERVATIVE BIAS, IT HAS AN ESTABLISHMENT OF BIAS.
SO WHEN
THEY SEE THOSE WONDERFUL ESTABLISHMENT SUPERDELEGATES
LINING UP FOR HILLARY, THEY COUNT THEM.
WAIT A MINUTE, THOSE
SUPERDELEGATES SWITCHED THEIR VOTES IN 2008.
SO IT IS AN ACT
OF JOURNALISTIC MALPRACTICE TO SAY THEY HAVE ALREADY VOTED,
WHICH IS NOT TRUE, OR THAT THEY WILL ALWAYS KEEP THEIR VOTE THE
WAY IT IS, WHICH IS ALSO NOT TRUE.
NONETHELESS, EVEN THOUGH
THEY HAVE BEEN TOLD THIS 1000 TIMES, ALL THE ESTABLISHMENT
PRESS HAVE COUNTED ALL ALONG TO MAKE IT SEEM LIKE HILLARY HAS A
BIGGER LEAD THAN SHE DOES, WHICH GIVES THE PERCEPTION OF HURTING
THE WINNER, WHICH AFFECTS VOTING.
AND NOW THEY WILL SAY WE ARE DECLARING IT AND IT IS OVER.
SO EVEN BEFORE THE VOTING IN CALIFORNIA, THE LARGEST
STATE, IS DONE, CHRIS MATTHEWS IS SAYING, WHAT ARE YOU
GOING TO DO ABOUT IT?
WE WILL DECLARE IT.
>> IT IS IMPORTANT TO KNOW THAT IS NOT WHAT CHRIS MATTHEWS WAS
DOING, HE WAS LITERALLY GIVING JEFF WEAVER THIS INFORMATION AND
GETTING THE REACTION, HE WASN'T SAYING IT WAS RIGHT OR WRONG, AS
YOU LISTEN TO THE ENTIRE INTERVIEW HE HAD I THOUGHT
A FAIRLY FAIR INTERVIEW WITH JEFF WEAVER AND STEVE
MCMAHON, A DEMOCRATIC CONSULTANT.
>>HE DID ASK IT AS A QUESTION, AND HE SAID IT IN A WAY
WHERE, MAYBE HE SHOULDN'T HAVE SAID IT.
>>MAYBE I SHOULDN'T SAY THIS, MAYBE THIS IS NOT RIGHT.
YOUR THOUGHTS?
>>IT IS NOT ON MATTHEWS, IT IS ON THE DECISION ITSELF.
>> AND IT WAS THE NETWORK, AND MATTHEWS WAS SUGGESTING IT WOULD
BE DONE BY THE OTHER NETWORKS TOO, AND AGAIN, THAT WOULD ALSO
MAKE SENSE TOO.
ARE WE ALL GOING TO DECIDE THAT THE
SUPERDELEGATES PUT HER OVER THE TOP?
WHAT I FIND HYPOCRITICAL OF
YOU AND THE WAY THE SHOW HANDLES THIS SITUATION IS YOU
CONSISTENTLY TALK ABOUT THE IRRELEVANCE OF THE MAINSTREAM
TELEVISION MEDIA THAT NOBODY YOUNG WATCHES OR PAYS ATTENTION,
THEN WHEN THEY DO SOMETHING LIKE THIS YOU ACT LIKE IT MASSIVELY
INFLUENCES THE ELECTION.
I HAVE NOT FOUND ONE WEBSITE THAT I GO
TO REGULARLY, WHICH IS BASICALLY HAVING IN POST, REAL CLEAR
POLITICS, AND THE NEW YORK TIMES, THAT INCLUDES
SUPERDELEGATES IN THE TOTAL WITHOUT A FURTHER SEARCH.
YOU
CAN GET THEM TO INCLUDE IT, BUT THEIR INITIAL NUMBERS ARE
PLEDGED DELEGATES, AND FURTHER DOWN YOU CAN ADD THE
SUPERDELEGATES.
>>IN HUFFINGTON POST YOU HAVE TO UNCHECK A BOX TO GET TO
PLEDGED DELEGATES.
>>YOU DON'T.
>>I HAVE DONE IT 100 TIMES.
>>I HAVE DONE IT TWICE TODAY, WE'RE LOOKING AT DIFFERENT SITES
ON HOW WE CAN POST.
I GO TO THE POLLSTER SITE AND IT IS NEVER
THERE.
>>I HAVE TO UNCHECK TO GET JUST PLEDGED DELEGATES, BUT I'M
MAINLY TALKING ABOUT TV.
>>AND THE NEW YORK TIMES, WHICH HAS A GOOD -- I DON'T KNOW WHAT
THE POST DOES, BUT THE TIMES HAS A GOOD -- THEY JUST LOOK AT
EXACTLY WHAT HAPPENED IN EACH STATE, RESULTS BY COUNTY, THAT
IS WHAT I AM FOLLOWING.
IN TV I SUPPOSE THEY DO, BUT MOST OF MY
EXPERIENCE HERE HAS BEEN SUPERDELEGATES NOT INCLUDED
UNTIL THEY SAY, IF YOU INCLUDE THEM.
>>IT IS INTERESTING WHAT OUR DIFFERENT PERCEPTIONS ARE.
>>BUT YOUR PERCEPTION --
>>ALMOST EVERY TIME ON TV, AND BY THE WAY, WE USE NEW YORK
TIMES ON ELECTION NIGHT BECAUSE THEY DON'T DO THAT AND THEY
ARE MORE ACCURATE.
SO THAT IS A FAIR POINT BY YOU.
BUT ON TV, SUPERDELEGATES, SUPERDELEGATES, ALMOST
EVERY TIME.
>>WHY DO YOU CARE WHAT PEOPLE WATCHED BY 72-YEAR-OLDS ARE
DOING IN ANY WAY, SHAPE, OR FORM
>>BECAUSE 72-YEAR-OLDS VOTE.
AND TO BE FAIR TO ME, AND I LOVE TO BE FAIR TO ME, FOR
YOUNGER PEOPLE, YES, TELEVISION IS IRRELEVANT.
HOW MANY PEOPLE UNDER 35 ARE WATCHING CHRIS MATTHEWS?
>>JUST LET ME INTERJECT, USA TODAY STILL RUNS ON MONDAY THE
RATINGS FOR ALL THE TOP 10 TV SHOWS, I WAS TALKING TO MY
OLDEST FRIEND ABOUT THIS, I USED TO TELL THAT SECTION OPEN ON
MONDAYS.
SHOWS ONE THROUGH 10, HE HAD NEVER HEARD OF.
>>THEY HAVE LOST TO THE RELEVANCE.
SOME OF THOSE SHOWS
ON ABC, THE BIG HITS ON PRIME TIME, HAVE LOST 700,000 TO
ONE MILLION 18 TO 34-YEAR-OLDS IN ONE YEAR.
IT'S LIKE ICE CAPS, THEY ARE MELTING AWAY.
>>IT IS A GREAT STORY TO THROW IN AT ANY TIME, IN THE LATE 90S
OR EARLY 2000, THE JONATHAN SILVERMAN SHOW THE SINGLE GUY IT
WAS ON NBC, IT WAS AFTER CHEERS OR COSBY OR SOMETHING, MAYBE
AFTER SEINFELD, AND IT RAN FOR TWO SEASONS, ERNEST BORGNINE WAS
ON, IT HAD LIKE 22 MILLION VIEWERS AND THEY CANCELED IT FOR
LOW RATINGS.
>>NOW WHAT THEY WOULD DO FOR 22 MILLION VIEWERS.
THAT THE
DISTINCTION IS, YES, PEOPLE OVER 40 STILL WATCH TELEVISION, AND
THE NEWS THAT THEY GET IS ENORMOUSLY BIASED AGAIN TOWARD
THE ESTABLISHMENT.
THEY TEND TO VOTE MORE OFTEN, SO THE REASON I
RAIL AGAINST TV IS THAT I KNOW THAT FOR A BIG CHUNK OF THIS
COUNTRY UNFORTUNATELY IT STILL MAKES A BIG DIFFERENCE.
>>THOSE SUPERDELEGATES HAVE SAID THEY WILL SUPPORT CLINTON.
>> HERE'S HOW I WOULD DO IT IF I WAS -- NOT IF I WAS GOING TO DO
IT, I AM GOING TO DO IT, WE HAVE ELECTION MIGHT COVERAGE EVERY
NIGHT AND WE WILL DO IT ON JUNE 7 AS WELL.
YOU SAY -- YOU WAIT,
YOU REPORT WHAT THE PLEDGED DELEGATES ARE AT THE END OF THE
VOTING, INCLUDING CALIFORNIA, AND THEN YOU SAY, HERE ARE THE
SUPERDELEGATES.
IF THE SUPERDELEGATES STAY WITH HILLARY
CLINTON, WHICH IS EXCEEDINGLY LIKELY, THAT MEANS TONIGHT SHE
PROBABLY WENT OVER THE TOP.
BUT WE WON'T KNOW UNTIL THEY VOTE.
NOW ON ANY OTHER ELECTION YEAR, I WOULD SAY THAT DISTINCTION IS
ABOUT AS MEANINGLESS AS IT GETS, THERE I WOULD BE WITH YOU.
IN
THIS YEAR, THE PERSON WITH THE PLEDGED DELEGATE LEAD IS UNDER
AN FBI INVESTIGATION.
I KNOW THAT YOU ARE NOT ALLOWED TO
CONSIDER THAT AS RELEVANT, I'M SORRY, I'M BREAKING THE RULES, I
CONSIDER IT RELEVANT.
IT IS A VERY UNIQUE SITUATION WHERE
THERE ARE 45 DAYS BETWEEN THE END OF THE VOTING, FOR ALL
PRACTICAL PURPOSES -- WASHINGTON, DC THE NEXT WEEK.
>>AS USUAL DC GETS DISMISSED, EVEN ON TYT.
>>45 DAYS BETWEEN THE END OF THE VOTING AND THE CONVENTIONS,
AND YES, SOMETHING DRAMATIC COULD HAPPEN BECAUSE WE ARE
IN THE MIDDLE OF IT.
>>IT IS NOT QUITE FAIR THAT SHE IS UNDER INVESTIGATION, BUT
SUPPOSE SHE GETS INDICTED.
SHE IS NOT UNDER INVESTIGATION, HER
USE OF EMAILS IS.
SHE IS NOT UNDER A CRIMINAL PROBE.
>>I DON'T QUITE AGREE WITH THAT, BUT GO AHEAD.
>>SUPPOSE ALL THE NETWORKS SAY THAT HILLARY CLINTON WHEN YOU
INCLUDE THE SUPERDELEGATES HAS ENOUGH DELEGATES, SHE WOULD BE
THE DEMOCRATIC NOMINEE.
THEY WON'T SAY SHE IS, THEY WILL SAY
SHE WOULD BE.
AND THEN SHE GETS INDICTED 22 DAYS LATER.
YOU THINK THAT BECAUSE CNN AND MSNBC SAID SHE IS THE NOMINEE
THEY WILL BE LIKE, I GUESS SHE HAS TO BE, THEY SAID IT ON TV?
THAT'S INSANE, SHE WON'T BE THE NOMINEE.
>>BUT LOOK AT HOW THEY TREAT THE INVESTIGATION.
I'VE NEVER HAD A
MAJOR CANDIDATE WHO IS LIKELY TO BE THE NOMINEE UNDER FBI
INVESTIGATION IN THE MIDDLE OF THE CAMPAIGN, AND YET THE MEDIA
-- THEY TALK ABOUT EMAILS AND USUALLY THE MOST IRRELEVANT
PARTS OF THAT CONTROVERSY, BUT THEN THEY ARE LIKE, FBI
INVESTIGATIONS DON'T COUNT, THERE IS NO WAY SHE WILL GET
INDICTED.
SHE IS THE WINNER, MOVE ON.
>>YOUR FILTER IS BLIND, AND IT HAS BEEN YOUR WORST COVERAGE
THAT I HAVE SET WITH YOU ON.
THAT EMAIL SCANDAL HAS BEEN
COVERED TO DEATH, AND IT HAS HURT HER, IT IS PARTLY WHY
BERNIE SANDERS IS WHERE HE IS, IT IS PARTLY WHY SHE IS DAMAGED,
YOU CAN MAKE A CASE THAT SHE DESERVES TO BE DAMAGED BY IT,
I'M NOT MAKING A CASE THAT IT SHOULD BE IGNORED OR PLAYED UP
OR ANYTHING.
BUT IT HAS HURT HER, NO QUESTION.
OUR NEXT STORY
TODAY IS ABOUT THE RELEASE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL'S REPORT
FROM THE STATE DEPARTMENT, IT HURTS HER.
IT IS BAD, IT DOES
NOT ALLEGE WHAT WOULD SEEM TO ME TO RISE TO THE LEVEL OF AN
INDICTABLE CRIME BUT I'M NOT A LAWYER.
>>BUT AM I WRONG THAT MOST EVERYONE ON TV IS SAYING -- THEY
ARE NOT MAKING IT LIKE, WHAT IF THERE IS AN INDICTMENT.
ALMOST
EVERYONE ASSUMES THERE WILL BE NO INDICTMENT, AND WHEN I MAKE A
BIG DEAL OUT OF IT, THE COVERAGE WE GET ON IT IS LIKE, THERE THEY
GO, TALKING ABOUT A POSSIBLE INDICTMENT IN THE MIDDLE OF
AN FBI INVESTIGATION THAT 99 OUT OF 100
TIMES LEADS TO AN INDICTMENT.
>>THAT IS NOT TRUE.
>>THIS MIGHT BE THE ONE TIME BECAUSE SHE IS INCREDIBLY
POWERFUL.
IF YOU ARE AN AVERAGE PERSON --
>>YOUR ANALYSIS IS SO WRONG, IT IS STAGGERING.
I DON'T KNOW THAT
99 OUT OF 100 TIMES THE FBI INVESTIGATES ANYTHING IT ENDS IN
AN INDICTMENT.
YOU ARE WRONG, I WILL BET YOU $1 BILLION.
>>YOU HAVE A DOZEN FBI AGENT ON SOMETHING, THEY ARE TWIDDLING
THEIR THUMBS, IT IS NOT A BIG DEAL, LET'S SEE WHAT HAPPENS?
>>WHICH IS IT?
SHE SO POWERFUL SHE CAN PREVENT THE INDICTMENT,
OR IS SHE NOT POWERFUL ENOUGH THAT THEY HAVE DOZENS OF HAPPY
AGENTS AND ALWAYS RESOURCES TO SEE THAT SHE GETS INDICTED?
IS
SHE A VICTIM OF THIS CONSPIRACY THAT HAS COME OUT AGAINST HER,
OR SHE IS SO POWERFUL SHE IS ABLE TO CRUSH IT?
BECAUSE IT HAS
DONE HER FOR MONTHS AND MONTHS, NO NEUTRAL OBSERVER OF THIS
CAMPAIGN WOULD THINK HILLARY CLINTON HAS GOTTEN AWAY WITH AN
EMAIL SCANDAL.
>>OKAY, FIRST OF ALL, THERE ARE TWO DIFFERENT THINGS YOU ARE
ADDRESSING.
NUMBER ONE, IN TERMS OF THE FBI RUNNING AN
INVESTIGATION, SHE IS NOT SO POWERFUL THAT SHE CAN STOP A
REPUBLICAN WHO IS THE HEAD OF THE FBI FROM STOPPING THAT
INVESTIGATION.
JAMES COMEY WAS NUMBER TWO UNDER JOHN ASHCROFT.
HE IS NOT A LITTLE REPUBLICAN.
HE HAD A MOMENT OF PRINTABLE
DURING THE BUSH ADMINISTRATION, THAT IS WHY OBAMA PUT HIM
IN CHARGE OF THE FBI.
BUT HE IS ENORMOUSLY REPUBLICAN.
HILLARY CAN'T SAY TO A REPUBLICAN HEAD OF THE FBI,
PLEASE STOP YOUR LEGITIMATE INVESTIGATION.
THAT CAN'T
HAPPEN.
BUT IS SHE POWERFUL IN TERMS OF HAVING PEOPLE ON TV
SAY, NO, HILLARY CLINTON, SHE IS THE NOMINEE SO OF COURSE THERE
WON'T BE AN INDICTMENT?
>>DO THEY HOLD THEIR ARMS OPEN LIKE THAT?
>> OFTENTIMES THEY DO, YES.
SO WHAT I KEEP ASKING THE TV PEOPLE
IS, HOW DO YOU KNOW?
DO YOU HAVE A MOLE INSIDE THE FBI?
MAYBE THEY ARE RIGHT ABOUT THAT ASSUMPTION.
>>WHERE WOULD WE HEAR CLIPS ABOUT EVERYONE SAYING THIS?
I'M
SURE YOU'D FIND THEM.
THIS SHOW WILL FIND THE CLIPS OF PEOPLE WHO DISMISS IT AND
IGNORE THE CLIPS OF PEOPLE WHO DON'T.
>>THERE IS A DOZEN FBI AGENTS INVESTIGATING HER?
WHY IS THAT NOT AN ENORMOUS STORY QUEST PUPPETS IT IS A
GIGANTIC STORY.
>>
BUT THEY WERE DECLARED FOR HER IGNORING THAT STORY ALTOGETHER.
>>BUT WHAT DOES THAT MATTER?
THAT HAS THE VALUE OF ME
DECLARING IT.
IT IS POINTLESS.
IF SHE GETS INDICTED SHE WILL BE
THE NOMINEE, REGARDLESS OF WHETHER CABLE CHANNELS SAY WITH
SUPERDELEGATES SHE WILL GO OVER THE TOP.
YOU ARE TYING TOGETHER
THE NOTION OF A POTENTIAL FBI INDICTMENT THAT PEOPLE WHO WANT
TV, AND WHY WE SHOULD EXPECT GREAT POLITICAL ANALYSIS FROM
THEM, I HAVE NO IDEA, THEY HAVEN'T OFFERED IT SINCE WALTER
CRONKITE RETIRED, AND MAYBE BEFORE THEN, WHY SHOULD WE WAIT
FOR THEM AND PUT SO MUCH CREDENCE ON WHAT THEY SAY?
IF
SHE GETS INDICTED SHE WILL NOT -- I DON'T KNOW, I THINK IF SHE
GETS INDICTED SHE WILL NOT BE THE DEMOCRATIC NOMINEE FOR
PRESIDENT, WHETHER CNN SAID ON JUNE 7
THAT SHE WILL BE WITH THE SUPERDELEGATES OR NOT.
>>STAY WITH ME, BECAUSE I THINK IN SOME WAYS YOU ARE AGREEING
WITH ME.
HERE IS WHY.
IF YOU THINK SHE GETS INDICTED SHE IS
NOT THE NOMINEE, THEN SHOULDN'T EVERYBODY ON TV BE SAYING, WELL,
SHE MIGHT BE THE NOMINEE OR SHE MIGHT BE INDICTED, IN WHICH CASE
SHE CLEARLY WON'T BE THE NOMINEE.
BUT NO ONE IS SAYING
THAT.
>>FIRST OF ALL, THERE HAVE NOT BEEN ANY STORIES SUGGESTING THAT
SHE WILL GET CHARGED WITH A CRIME.
THAT IT WOULD BE HER
OFFICE, OR SOMEBODY ELSE -- WE DON'T KNOW, BUT THE STORIES I
HAVE READ FROM -- I'M NOT GOING TO GET THEIR JOBS RIGHT, BUT
FROM FORMER FEDERAL INVESTIGATORS IS THAT IT IS VERY
UNLIKELY TO PRODUCE AN INDICTMENT, AND IF IT DOES,
THERE IS NO PUNISHMENT IN THE LAW FOR IT WHICH WOULD AFFECT
YOUR DECISION TO PROSECUTE, IF THE RESULT OF THE PROSECUTION
IS, BUT WE DON'T HAVE ANYTHING WRITTEN INTO IT PARTLY BECAUSE
IT IS AN INCREDIBLY POORLY WRITTEN LAW.
SO BASED ON ALL
THAT, IT SEEMS UNLIKELY TO ME THAT SHE WILL BE INDICTED.
IT IS
NOT IMPOSSIBLE, IF SHE GETS INDICTED, I WOULD IMAGINE SHE
WON'T BE THE NOMINEE.
I DON'T THINK THESE THINGS ARE RELATED.
I THINK THE FACT THAT ASIDE FROM CONGRESSIONAL INVESTIGATIONS
THAT THERE IS THE INSPECTOR GENERAL'S REPORT FROM THE STATE
DEPARTMENT, WHICH SHE THEORETICALLY COULD HAVE WASHED,
I SUPPOSE, IF SHE WAS ALL-POWERFUL, THE INSPECTOR
GENERAL IS TECHNICALLY INDEPENDENT BUT JOHN KERRY AND
BARACK OBAMA PUT HAVE PUT PRESSURE ON IT, THAT WOULD HAVE
BEEN BREAKING THE LAW, BUT --
>>I'M NOT SUGGESTING SHE WILL QUASH IT BECAUSE SHE IS
POWERFUL, I DON'T THINK SHE GETS TO QUASH THINGS LIKE THAT, THAT
IS WHY I THINK THE INDICTMENT IS POSSIBLE.
MAYBE THESE TV GUYS KNOW SOMETHING I DON'T KNOW,
THAT SHE IS SO POWERFUL THAT THEY ARE ALLOWED TO DO THAT
IN A WAY I DON'T UNDERSTAND.
>>YOU SHOULD MAKE A POINT OF HILLARY COULD GET INDICTED AND
IF SO SHE WON'T BE THE NOMINEE, AND BERNIE SHOULD STAY IN
BECAUSE IF HE DROPS OUT IT IS EASIER FOR THE PARTY TO
PUSH JOE BIDEN IN LIKE YOU BUT HUMPHREY.
>>AND THEY WILL ALMOST CERTAINLY TRY.
>>BUT IF YOU HAVE A GUY WHO IS 300 DELEGATES SHORT OF GETTING
THE NOMINATION AND IS STILL IN THE RACE, IT BECOMES HARDER TO
DO THAT AND CREATE A LEGITIMATE FIGHT.
THAT IS DIFFERENT THAN
TYING IT INTO WHAT IS A CONSISTENT THEME THAT I JUST
DON'T THINK BEARS OUT, THAT THE MEDIA HAS THIS GIANT FIX IN FOR
CLINTON WHEN HILLARY CLINTON SUPPORTERS, RIGHT OR WRONG, CAN
COME ON AND MAKE A CASE VERY EASILY THAT THE MEDIA HAS HAD A
FIX IN FOR HILLARY CLINTON FOR 24 YEARS AND THEY STILL HAVE IT
IN FOR HER.
AND IN ADDITION TO THE INSPECTOR GENERAL'S REPORT
AND THE CONGRESSIONAL INVESTIGATIONS THERE IS A REPORT
BY THE INTELLIGENCE AGENCIES, NOT SPECIFICALLY THE CIA, UNDER
THE PENUMBRA OF ALL THE INTELLIGENCE AGENCIES, THEY
ARE INVESTIGATING IN ADDITION TO THE FBI -- IF NOTHING COMES
OUT OF THIS CASE IT HAS BEEN SUFFICIENTLY INVESTIGATED.
>>IF NOTHING COMES OUT OF THE CASE IT IS OVER, OVER, OVER.
THE ONLY GUY WHO WILL CONTINUE TO TALK ABOUT IS DONALD
TRUMP, AND HE WON'T STOP, HE WILL ALLEGE A COVER-UP --
>> HE TALKED ABOUT VINCE FOSTER TODAY.
>>OF COURSE.
IF THERE IS NO INDICTMENT, THE PRIMARY IS OVER.
AND AFTER CALIFORNIA LIKELY, BECAUSE IF THERE IS A 300
PLEDGED DELEGATES LEAD SHE WILL HAVE WON MORE PLEDGED DELEGATES,
THE SUPERDELEGATES ARE ON HER SIDE, THEY WILL VOTE FOR HER AT
THE CONVENTION AND THAT WILL BE THAT.