by Rudy Panko, from Russia Insider
Hillary Clinton sent her husband to ‘tie up loose ends’ in Boston. There’s no question that election violations occured — but nothing will be done.
It would be naive to expect anything less than sleazeball tactics from the Hillary Clinton campaign, but what they just pulled off in Massachusetts takes the sleazeball cake, topped off with an election fraud cherry just for good measure.
We’ve already documented how the Clinton machine worked its magic in Nevada and Iowa. But what happened in Massachusetts just shows how committed the Democratic Party is to defrauding American voters.
Using her husband as her surrogate election fraudster, Hillary sent Bill on a “tour” of several Boston-area polling sites. Armed with a megaphone, Bill not only campaigned for his wife directly in front of several polling places (which is a violation of Massachusetts “electioneering” laws) but also prevented people from voting. “Laws”. Who needs them?
Bill Clinton’s stumping for his wife, Hillary, in Massachusetts today. The problem is, he’s blocked off several polling entrances, preventing people from voting. In New Bedford, a Reddit user posted a video depicting the former president speaking from a megaphone. Voters were roped off and could not enter their polling places.
According to a voter who witnessed one of Bill’s “special appearances”, the former president had a busy day of voter suppression:
It wasn’t just this polling station, it was about three different ones in New Bedford. His appearances locked down each voting site for a couple hours each. What happened was that they plopped down their event pretty much right in front of the entrance and then barricaded it off with lots of security. This took place at the Normandin Middle School, Dottin Place and Taber Mills Community House.”
In plain English: Bill Clinton violated election laws:
“Aren’t there rules about electioneering at the polling location?” one person wrote on Twitter, after seeing the video.
Secretary of State William F. Galvin told the New York Times that he had to remind election workers that “even a president can’t go inside and work a polling place.”
“He can go in, but he can’t approach voters,” Galvin said. “We just took the extra precaution of telling them because this is not a usual occurrence. You don’t usually get a president doing this.”
According to the Election Day Legal Summary on Galvin’s website, certain activities on Election Day are prohibited within polling locations and within 150 feet of polling places, including the “solicitation of votes for or against, or any other form of promotion or opposition of, any person or political party.”
Bill Clinton had also been inside the Newton Free Library, a polling station in Newton, on Tuesday, after greeting supporters outside.
A spokesman from Galvin’s office said Hillary Clinton’s campaign had been “notified” of the state rules.
“We have heard about it, and the clerks have been instructed and the campaign has been instructed that 150 feet is the rule,” said Brian McNiff, a spokesman for Galvin’s office.
Does this look like 150 feet to you?
Similar to her other stolen victories in Iowa and Nevada, Hillary “won” Massachusetts by an incredibly small margine — less than 2%. The Clinton campaign didn’t “just” break the election laws in Massachusetts — it also played a cynical game of voter suppression:
It’s well known in both campaigns that Massachusetts is a must-win for Bernie Sanders and Hillary Clinton. Sanders has tightened the race so that he and Hillary are only eight points apart, with Clinton leading 50 to 42 percent. On the Monday before Super Tuesday, Politico reported that Clinton led among voters over the age of 45, whereas Sanders held a 17-point lead among younger voters.
And so, Sanders and Clinton both know that the youth vote could make or break each of their campaigns, so Bill’s strategy of effectively suppressing the vote by blocking off entrances or making it confusing and difficult to vote will likely discourage more younger voters than older voters.
Preventing younger people from voting, then, is likely a major part of the Clinton campaign strategy, and Bill’s appearances at these locations, which plainly had a high number of people waiting to vote, seemed to be an attempt at electioneering, a method of voter intimidation and suppression by campaigning for a chosen candidate directly in front of a voting station.
Even America’s most obedient newspapers had a hard time whitewashing what the Clinton campaign did in Boston. Here’s how the New York Times reports blatant election violations:
Clinton was “a little too close” to voters? He was inside the polling place. “A little too close” is when you accidentally step on somebody’s shoe. Bill Clinton broke the law. But now we’re just splitting hairs, right? To its credit, the Boston Globe actually put “violating election rules” in its headline, but added a question mark at the end to add a level of uncertainty to 100% certain election fraud:
But CBS showed the most creativity in whitewashing textbook case election violations:
Twitter was a bit less “understanding”. The Intercept’s Lee Fang made this rather poignant observation:
We’re actually surprised that Twitter didn’t censor the story.
What makes this whole charade even worse is that the “no electioneering near polling sites” rule was enforced — selectively. Bernie supporters were asked to leave the same area where Bill Clinton was marching up and down with a megaphone:
Finally, here’s a fun video compilation of the Clinton Machine’s “democracy in action”:
Normally, this level of blatant electioneering would be punished with a fine, and possibly up to one year in prison.
But as Hillary Clinton has shown again and again: Laws are for suckers.