Overlooking the Obvious, if Hillary is Indicted?*
© Clifford C. Nichols, May 2016
If Clinton is indicted, Biden and Kerry are often named as the Democratic Party’s most likely substitutes. Overlooked, however, is a far more obvious, insidious, and realistic possibility — a substitute who, unlike either Biden or Kerry, might actually stand a realistic chance of uniting the Democratic Party and beating Trump in the fall — Michelle Obama.
Like Hillary, Michelle is the spouse of a former, or at least soon to be former, president. As such, like Hillary, she is not constitutionally prohibited from seeking (to remain in) the White House. And, like Hillary, she is arguably qualified, seasoned, and experienced. Even more importantly, however, is the fact that, unlike Hillary, she is not burdened with any baggage of alleged criminal conduct.
Are these facts likely to be overlooked by her party if they are compelled to consider alternatives to Hillary if she is indicted? Not likely.
From a progressive point of view, Michelle is a popular educated black liberal female. Translation? She is most probably more appealing to almost all significantly relevant demographic groups than either Biden or Kerry could ever hope to be. Demographics that could foreseeably unite Hillary’s supporters with Bernie’s and, perhaps even lure some “crossovers” back from Trump. As such, would she not provide a clearer path by which her presently fractured party could effectively unite and ultimately defeat Trump? Probably.
Additionally, Michelle’s anointing would also present significant personal benefits to the Obama’s. At minimum, Michelle would present the best of all options for the President to protect, if not guarantee the continuation of, his legacy. Surely, if elected, would she not foreseeably continue unabated the advancement of much, if not most, of his present Administration’s liberal Supreme Court, immigration, LGBT, pro-choice and anti-Israel agendas? Almost certainly.
Finally, it would allow Obama to completely resolve to his benefit the conflict of interest Hillary’s debacle has otherwise placed him in. If Michelle is nominated by her party to resolve the ensuing chaos at their Convention created by Hillary's indictment, it would enable Obama to fulfill his lawful duty as President to actually enforce the laws Hillary has violated, while simultaneously satisfying his political duty to support a candidate who will beat Trump in November. Whereas, if he either does indict Hillary and doesn’t replace her with a winner, or doesn’t indict and so fails to faithfully execute the laws, he knows history will record as his legacy the animus of our nation that is the product of his failure to lead.
Obama has opined on several occasions in the last year that, were he to be able to run again, he would win. Could it be this belief, coupled with the possibility of a run by his wife, which would explain why Obama’s Justice Department appears to be delaying Hillary’s indictment until a date drawing nearer and nearer to the Democratic Convention? I think so.
True, the nomination of Michelle might never occur. But, at minimum, shouldn’t Republicans carefully consider the question: if our nation cannot afford to risk the actual occurrence of this possibility, can we really afford to risk not considering the possibility of its occurrence? I think not.
The only question remaining is, whether President Obama is capable of considering such a strategy? If so, the author believes the GOP should as well.
* * *
*To dispel the notion that this article is a conspiracy theory, please note that the author:
Is not in favor of either Michelle Obama or Hillary Clinton becoming President;
Does believe, however, that Obama is not inclined to want to yield his current position to protect his legacy and continue his agendas
Does believe Obama's personality indicates his preference would be to continue in office if a legal means were available; and
Does believe that the replacement of Hillary by Michelle Obama is a possible and legal, even if not probable, option available to Democrats at the convention.
© 2016 Clifford C. Nichols. Cliff Nichols is an attorney licensed to practice law in both California and New Mexico. He may be contacted at cnicholslaw.com.