No, Bernie Sanders Shouldn't Concede. He Can Still Win, Despite What Media Says.

Democratic presidential candidate Sen. Bernie Sanders speaks at Barker Hangar on June 7, 2016 in Santa Monica, California.
Democratic presidential candidate Sen. Bernie Sanders speaks at Barker Hangar on June 7, 2016 in Santa Monica, California. Sanders refused to concede defeat to Hillary Clinton late on June 7, vowing to 'continue the fight' for the Democratic nomination despite his rival declaring herself the party's flagbearer for the US presidential race. / AFP / JONATHAN ALCORN (Photo credit should read JONATHAN ALCORN/AFP/Getty Images)

From the FBI probe of Clinton's emails being a "witch hunt," to her decision to use a private server merely for "convenience," Hillary Clinton's political message relies upon hidden meaning. Iraq was a "mistake" and she "evolved" on gay marriage; to investigate further might be labeled "Benghazi!" If Bernie Sanders used semantics in the manner utilized by Clinton (in order to circumvent controversy), there's no doubt the media would have eviscerated him. Bernie's opponent, however, "always tried" to tell the truth, so that's more than enough for The Washington Post and The New York Times.

Euphemism plays a key role in Clinton's recent status as "presumptive nominee." Clinton has 2,203 pledged delegates, not the 2,383 she'd need to officially win the Democratic nomination. Thus, Clinton's supredelegates cast their ballot during the Democratic Convention on July 25th, and these 574 Democratic party bosses (many of whom have lobbying ties to Clinton) will be needed to officially make the former Secretary of State nominee.

However, what happens if the FBI's criminal investigation of Clinton's emails results in legal consequences pertaining to the Espionage Act?

Not much discussion about that possibility, is there?

After all, the FBI is only conducting a "security review," so what could go wrong?

Clinton's penchant for euphemism is often times combined with a mainstream media beholden to simple concepts, and centrist views. For example, the following New York Times article on June 7, 2016 makes no mention of Clinton's FBI probe and begins with a factually incorrect statement:

Hillary Clinton claimed the Democratic presidential nomination on Tuesday night after decisive victories in the California, New Jersey and New Mexico primaries, and she quickly appealed to supporters of Senator Bernie Sanders of Vermont to unite with her against Donald J. Trump.

The New York Times article begins with a statement that is factually incorrect; omitting the "presumptive" label. Nobody claimed anything officially (2,203 pledged delegates is different from 2,383 pledged delegates), and Clinton is still under FBI criminal investigation for owning a private server as Secretary of State.

People say H. A. Goodman is biased, but when one of the most respected publications in America ignores pledged delegate count (with a candidate still facing an FBI probe), an overt bias is legitimized as fact. True, most observers view Clinton to either be too powerful, or simply a target of GOP attacks, but an FBI criminal investigation used to be horrible for presidential campaigns.

There used to be a time in American history when Clinton would never have been able to run for president, alongside an ongoing FBI probe. I highlight one reason Clinton is able to circumvent scandal that would harm other politicians during my appearance on CNN New Day.

The willingness to write about the most appealing aspects of an election isn't necessarily a bad thing, however when publications omit the reality that one candidate could theoretically serve jail time, Americans aren't given the entire picture. From The New York Times to the Hillary-worshiping Daily Banter, liberal media ignores the reality that Bernie Sanders still has a path to victory. Rest assured, if the shoe were on the other foot, Sanders would have already been accused of treason.

Furthermore, headlines that would sink any campaign seem to barely touch Clinton. On June 8th, 2016 the AP published an article by Deb Riechmann titled Experts: Clinton emails could have compromised CIA names:

WASHINGTON (AP) -- The names of CIA personnel could have been compromised not only by hackers who may have penetrated Hillary Clinton's private computer server or the State Department system, but also by the release itself of tens of thousands of her emails, security experts say.

Clinton, the presumptive Democratic presidential nominee, turned over to the State Department 55,000 emails from her private server that were sent or received when she was secretary of state. Some contained information that has since been deemed classified, and those were redacted for public release with notations for the reason of the censorship.

At least 47 of the emails contain the notation "B3 CIA PERS/ORG," which indicates the material referred to CIA personnel or matters related to the agency. And because both Clinton's server and the State Department systems were vulnerable to hacking, the perpetrators could have those original emails, and now the publicly released, redacted versions showing exactly which sections refer to CIA personnel.

"Start with the entirely plausible view that foreign intelligence services discovered and rifled Hillary Clinton's server," said Stewart Baker, a Washington lawyer who spent more than three years as an assistant secretary of the Homeland Security Department and is former legal counsel for the National Security Agency.

If so, those infiltrators would have copies of all her emails with the names not flagged as being linked to the agency.

In the process of publicly releasing the emails, however, classification experts seem to have inadvertently provided a key to anyone who has the originals. By redacting names associated with the CIA and using the "B3 CIA PERS/ORG" exemption as the reason, "Presto -- the CIA names just fall off the page," Baker said.

... The AP discovered last year that Clinton's private server was directly connected to the internet in ways that made it more vulnerable to hackers. A recent State Department inspector general's report indicated the server was temporarily unplugged by a Clinton aide at one point during attacks by hackers, but her campaign has said there's no evidence the server was hacked.

A March 2, 2009, email warned against State Department officials using Blackberries. Eric Boswell, assistant secretary of state, says the "vulnerabilities and risks associated with the use of Blackberries ... considerably outweigh their convenience."

...Nine days later, another email states that Clinton approached Boswell and says she "gets" the risk. The email also said: "Her attention was drawn to the sentence that indicates we (the diplomatic security office officials) have intelligence concerning this vulnerability during her recent trip to Asia."

Sure, you'll hear about the historic moment of Clinton possibly becoming the first female president. However, you won't find many articles nowadays stating "The AP discovered last year that Clinton's private server was directly connected to the internet in ways that made it more vulnerable to hackers." Also, even when trying to show transparency (Clinton deleted over 30,000 emails that the public will never see) by disclosing tens of thousands of pages, Clinton's actions might have jeopardized national security.

The FBI has yet to disclose its findings pertaining to Clinton's emails, or the impact they've had on U.S. national security. In the event that Hillary Clinton actually broke laws pertaining to the Espionage Act, for example, the DNC would have to choose Bernie Sanders as nominee. Biden is not realistic, considering Bernie already has over 12 million votes and destroys Trump in the polls.

So what happens the day James Comey and the FBI disclose the findings of a year-long investigation?

It might seem blasphemous to many loyal Democrats, but once the media firestorm creates a new narrative, Bernie Sanders will easily surpass Clinton to become nominee.

This narrative, furthered by even The New York Times and Washington Post, would consist of the FBI's findings, and how their conclusions pertain to Clinton's decision-making and wisdom. It's easy to hide behind the "Benghazi" euphemism against most critiques, but the FBI isn't part of the Republican Party. When everyone is talking about Clinton's emails, her campaign might realize it's already hit the iceberg.

Bernie Sanders is the only Democratic candidate not linked to an ongoing FBI investigation, or its repercussions. I explain this reality during my latest appearance on MSNBC. Bernie must not quit and must not end his campaign, especially since the FBI could give him the Democratic nomination at any moment. American media, focused solely on the last three hours of every day, would give Bernie Sanders the spark needed to overcome Clinton's recent momentum. The presumptive nominee is "presumptive" for a reason, and Bernie Sanders must remain patient. Stranger things have happened, than a person under investigation facing legal consequences.

Also on HuffPost: