“If an election is to be determined by a majority … procured by a party through artifice or corruption, the Government may be the choice of a party for its own ends, not of the nation for the national good.” —John Adams (1797)

There has been some chatter in recent weeks that Hillary Clinton isn’t actually the Democrat Party’s intended 2016 nominee. That chatter was amplified last week when the ever-inebriated former House Speaker John Boehner, the quintessential “establishment Republican,” endorsed Donald Trump while maligning Trump’s conservative opponent, Ted Cruz. (No small irony that Boehner’s abject failure as speaker has largely fueled Trump’s populist appeal.)

Amid the fratricidal mayhem, you may have missed this Boehner prediction: “Don’t be shocked if two weeks before the convention, here comes Joe Biden parachuting in and Barack Obama fanning the flames to make it all happen.”

For the record, I don’t think Biden is the intended nominee, but I do believe he — not Sanders — is the default candidate in the event that Clinton is indicted on felony charges. The calculus that this indictment is coming may mean that she is already presumed to be a mere placeholder for Biden — unless, of course, Bernie Sanders continues to flank that strategy. Let’s hope he does!

In a profile on Warren two years ago, I noted that a Clinton indictment “would open the door for Warren or Biden, or perhaps a Biden-Warren ticket.” Indeed, Joe Biden is an affable candidate who has none of Clinton’s negatives, and Warren is the ideological heir apparent for Obama’s “Imperial Presidency.” Like Obama, she is a certifiable socialist — a rising star among the statists who have infested the once-noble Democrat Party.

In August 2015, I framed the Biden-Warren default strategy in “Hillary’s Email Subterfuge.”

At that time, the best evidence that felony charges were a distinct possibility was Obama’s endorsement of Biden, by way of his spokesman Josh Earnest, a day after Biden held a powwow with Warren.

According to Earnest, “The president has indicated that [adding] Joe Biden to the ticket as his running mate was the smartest decision that he has ever made in politics. And I think that should give you some sense into the president’s view into the vice president’s aptitude for the top job.” Earnest added, “The vice president is somebody who has already run for president twice. So I think you could probably make the case that there is no one in American politics today [emphasis added] who has a better understanding of exactly what is required to mount a successful national presidential campaign.”

While Earnest also expressed Obama’s “appreciation, respect and admiration” for Hillary Clinton, his statements on Biden, in light of Clinton’s mounting indictment prospects, are clear in their intent.

Recall that the Obamas hate the Clintons. If Obama can ensure a Democrat successor in November, it will lend legitimacy to his legacy. If he can do so while destroying Hillary Clinton, it would be a double dip.

No doubt Biden’s meeting with Warren last year was to reach an accord that he would serve one term with her as his Veep — if she stayed out of the 2016 primary. Clearly a Biden-Warren “parachute in” ticket would be far more competitive than either Clinton or Sanders at the top of the Demo punchcard.

In February 2015, Biden advocated for an Obama third term: “I call it sticking with what works!” By “what works,” he must have meant duping voters in presidential campaigns, because in both the 2010 and 2012 midterm elections, Obama’s Democrat Party policies have suffered resounding defeat. That notwithstanding, in July, Obama himself asserted: “I can not run again. I actually think I’m a pretty good president — I think if I ran I could win. But I can’t.”

However, a Biden-Warren ticket is a de facto third Obama term.

While many polls have indicated that Clinton will thump Trump in the general election, a couple of recent polls have shown a much tighter race. One of those polls, from Rasmussen, actually has Trump ahead of Clinton — which says far more about her unfavorable ratings than his favorability.

A Biden-Warren ticket, however, would likely slice and dice Trump. Hillary Clinton is a well-known and thoroughly unlikeable candidate, while Biden and Warren have been free from the campaign mudslinging that invariably drives a candidate’s numbers down. Clearing the path for that ticket at the eleventh hour while sending Hillary to the hoosegow would be both brilliant and diabolical on Obama’s part.

But a caveat emptor: Reports on Trump’s imminent demise may be greatly exaggerated! Few Republicans or Democrats took Donald Trump’s presidential run seriously a year ago. Every seasoned political analyst has underestimated Trump’s appeal, failing to recognize what I coined in February as “The Obama effect.” The combination of broad spectrum grassroots anger across party lines, exhaustion after two terms of the Obama regime, earned disdain for ineffectual GOP leadership (primarily the aforementioned John Boehner), a large field of fratricidal GOP primary contenders, and Trump’s media/pollaganda propulsion have created a “perfect storm” for Trump’s rhetorical sound-bite campaign. A Trump/Kasich ticket will be formidable.

The question remains, will anything stick to Clinton, who appears to be as adept at evading political liabilities as her political benefactor, “Teflon Bill”? Her record of deceptions, obfuscations and subterfuges is impressive, and she has, thus far, escaped prosecution.

However, the looming “Clinton indictment” wildcard may stick. If felony charges are brought in connection with her deliberate use of private email servers to conceal her official communications, including the receipt and transmission of top secret documents and those detailing her role in the Benghazi murders cover-up to protect Obama’s 2012 re-election, then she will be sidelined.

As Charles Krauthammer asserted back in January, “The person who will decide the nomination on the Democratic side is the FBI Director, [James] Comey.” This week, former New Jersey Superior Court Judge Andrew Politano declared, “The evidence of Mrs. Clinton’s guilt, from the public record alone, is truly overwhelming. It is sufficient to indict and it is sufficient to convict.” According to political analyst Steve Hayes, “The national security lawyers I have talked to, both Republican and Democrat, Believe there is already enough evidence to indict.”

Now that Trump is the presumptive Republican nominee, Democrats have a serious problem — how can Clinton take on Trump? How’s she going to hit him? His marital history? His ethics? His honesty? His wealth? His Wall Street connections? His politically incorrect ways? On every one of those issues, one of two things applies: Her record is either as bad as or worse than his, or he’s managed to turn each “weakness” into a strength.

A Clinton indictment would play right into the Demos 2016 presidential aspirations, as it would deliver a political deathblow to the Clinton Crime Family while clearing the way for a much more formidable Democrat ticket.

A Biden-Warren ticket will do the trick.

Biden can hold his own with Trump on all those populist issues that Clinton can’t touch. And Warren, as I noted in 2014, is a far smarter and more articulate Leftist than Clinton — or Obama for that matter — and she’ll attract a lot of the Sanders Socialists who are utterly repelled by Clinton’s candidacy.

On Biden’s ticket, Warren would also do a better job of rallying female voters — and female voter majorities have elected every Democrat president since Kennedy. Though Trump recently blustered that all Clinton has is “the woman card,” that is largely responsible for every successful Democrat ticket since 1960.

In the next few months, expect more high-profile appearances from Joe Biden, like his “surprise visit to Iraq” last week. And expect to hear more from Elizabeth Warren too.

(Footnote: As I have noted previously, I do NOT fall into the “never Trump” crowd, any more than I do the “only Trump” crowd. I will vote early and often for Trump against any Democrat ticket, because better to have a president who will support (however inadvertently) Rule of Law some of the time than a statist Democrat who stands diametrically opposed to our Constitution.)

Pro Deo et Constitutione — Libertas aut Mors
Semper Vigilans Fortis Paratus et Fidelis