So when the FBI report clears Hillary of illegal activity...

[DCBob]

I guess the Bernsters will be crying conspiracy or just crying since that was Bernie's only hope of getting the nomination.

[hrmbaja]

1. She admitted wrongdoing.

No way the FBI lets her off scot-free.

[DCBob]

12. No she did not.

Not sure what you are talking about??

[GeorgiaPeanuts]

38. What is this?

[DCBob]

39. You tell me. What is it??

[GeorgiaPeanuts]

43. She asks her aide to remove the confidential headings so it can be sent nonsecure

[DCBob]

69. So??

What were the circumstances? Did this message actually contain classified information? Was the situation urgent and couldn't wait for the fax repair man? Isnt the SOS allowed to make decisions like this??

[IdaBriggs]

71. You really need to either get up to speed or stop typing.

Endangering national security is known as a crime. There are over a thousand emails that should never have been sent, with 22 that were so classified we won't see them for decades. That doesn't even address the "kept government property in her basement" or "evaded complying with FOIA laws" or "didn't provide all documents in her possession to a House committee who subpoenaed them/lied that they didn't exist" or "communicated about secret/classified information with an employee of the Clinton Foundation who didn't have clearance" or "attempted to delete 30k government emails that were evidence in a possible criminal investigation" or even the speculation that a bunch of those emails contain evidence of "pay to play" against US interests with money laundered through the Clinton Foundation. This is NOT a right wing conspiracy - this is epic bad judgment and usually involves jail for people who commit these acts. The question of whether or not she is above the law is what everyone is watching. (And yes, she knew what she was doing - she even sent an email to staff warning them against mixing their personal and business email accounts!)

[DCBob]

84. LOL.. you insist that I stop posting the truth.

But you and others can post bogus RW crap attacking her??

Good grief you have really gone off the deep end.

[IdaBriggs]

87. Ha! I just finished the "just the facts" post to another uninformed person --

And will now use the magic "copy/paste" feature (as suggested by Hillary to avoid having classified headers in an email about classified information) to bring you up to speed back here in Reality Land where the rest of us live -

BEGIN COPY =====

Preparing this reply was a huge pain, so I hope I can get through to you. AFTER COPY: Going to get multiple uses out of it, so yeah!

The Washing Post has written a highly detailed account of the whole situation - you can read it here: https://www.washingtonpost.com/investigations/how-clintons-email-scandal-took-root/2016/03/27/ee301168-e162-11e5-846c-10191d1fc4ec_story.html

Investigations were begun by congressional committees and inspector general’s offices in the State Department and the U.S. Intelligence Community, which referred the case to the FBI in July for “counterintelligence purposes” after determining that the server carried classified material.

The FBI is now trying to determine whether a crime was committed in the handling of that classified material. It is also examining whether the server was hacked.

NOTE NOT FROM ARTICLE: Screen shots of her emails were released by a hacker a few years ago BEFORE this went down. The hacker has now been extradited here, and is in custody in the United States.

(snip)

In a news conference last March, she (Clinton) said: “I opted for convenience to use my personal email account, which was allowed by the State Department, because I thought it would be easier to carry just one device for my work and for my personal emails instead of two.”

NOTE NOT FROM ARTICLE: State Department employees are NOT allowed to mix business and personal email accounts, and she even sent an email to staff reminding them of this.

(snip)

Judge Emmet G. Sullivan of the U.S. District Court in Washington, D.C., who is presiding over one of the FOIA lawsuits, has expressed puzzlement over the affair. He noted that Clinton put the State Department in the position of having to ask her to return thousands of government records — her work email.

NOTE NOT IN ARTICLE: FOIA requests were showing blank because her work records were in her basement. She NEVER volunteered them; the only reason it was found was a young staffer during Benghazi investigations finally caught the email wasn't a standard ".gov" and all the hidden stuff was revealed.

(snip)

Her first known BlackBerry communication through the basement server came on Jan. 28, 2009, when Clinton exchanged notes with Army Gen. David H. Petraeus, then chief of the U.S. Central Command, according to a State Department spokeswoman. It has not been released.

NOTE NOT FROM ARTICLE: That name should ring a bell - go google why. It isn't because he was a good guy.

(snip)

The system had other features that made it vulnerable to talented hackers, including a software program that enabled users to log on directly from the World Wide Web.

Four computer-security specialists interviewed by The Post said that such a system could be made reasonably secure but that it would need constant monitoring by people trained to look for irregularities in the server’s logs.

NOTE NOT FROM ARTICLE: That stuff might not make sense if you aren't a computer geek, but basically "secure servers" require more than just an off-the-shelf anti-virus program. There was no "team" involved.

(snip)

State Department and Intelligence Community officials have determined that 2,093 email chains contained classified information. Most of the classified emails have been labeled as “confidential,” the lowest level of classification. Clinton herself authored 104 emails that contained classified material, a Post analysis later found.

NOTE NOT IN ARTICLE: A Secretary of State authoring classified material? Seems pretty logical, right? Kind of an accepted part of the job description - and to assume she didn't or wasn't going to do it for her entire tenure is not reasonable. Also, points for psychic ability in assuming heads of state and professional peers weren't EVER going to send "classified" material to her - which makes no sense, considering her job title.

(snip)

On June 28, 2011, in response to reports that Gmail accounts of government workers had been targeted by “online adversaries,” a note went out over Clinton’s name urging department employees to “avoid conducting official Department business from your personal email accounts.”

NOTE NOT IN ARTICLE: Ha! See mention above!

(snip)

At first, she flat-out denied that her server ever held any. “There is no classified material," she said at a March 10, 2015, news conference.

NOTE NOT IN ARTICLE: This is why you say what you said - you believed her.

Twenty-two emails discovered later were deemed so highly classified that they were withheld in their entirety from public release. “They are on their face sensitive and obviously classified,” Rep. Chris Stewart (R-Utah), a member of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, told The Post. “This information should have been maintained in the most secure, classified, top-secret servers.”

NOTE NOT IN ARTICLE: She lied. And this was only in the first batch because this comment was before the FBI retrieved the 32,000 deleted "personal" emails that weren't JUST personal - you can view them at wiki leaks - a substantial number are GOVERNMENT BUSINESS.

Next, the CONTENT of the emails, with issues like "Sidney Blumenthal, paid Clinton Foundation employee banned by White House, discussing/copying/Top Secret intelligence reports" being front and center. Speculation on the unreleased emails (not sure how many) involves the Clinton Foundation donors getting "special treatment" in what may be a "pay to play" scheme not in the best interests of the American government - go google arms deals to Foundation donors because this seems like a plausible explanation for previously head scratching dumb decisions - and odds are good those are the types of "interviews" the FBI and NSA are doing.

This is an UGLY MESS and it is NOT A RIGHT WING SMEAR JOB. This is stuff people are currently sitting in jail over and it is darn near a test of our value systems as a country:

Are some of us "more equal" than others? Are we ALL equal before the law?

I hope this helped. This situation has nothing to do with Bernie. Hillary was given trust and power, and she flat out abused it.

Whether you like Bernie Sanders or not, Hillary Clinton is not fit to be President of the United States.

END COPY =====

[DCBob]

90. Nobody knows for sure what the FBI is doing and what they have found.

I suggest we wait for the report and then we will all know. Your statement "Hillary Clinton is not fit to be President of the United States" is ridiculous.

[IdaBriggs]

100. When I say, "factually inaccurate" that is polite for "you're lying."

We know EXACTLY what the FBI is doing: THEIR JOB.

The FBI is now trying to determine whether a crime was committed in the handling of that classified material. It is also examining whether the server was hacked.

We *know* a hacker posted screen shots of Hillary's emails (from the Sidney Blumenthal computer) back in 2013 -

http://gawker.com/5991563/hacked-emails-show-hillary-clinton-was-receiving-advice-at-a-private-email-account-from-banned-obama-hating-former-staffer

and

http://www.thesmokinggun.com/buster/sidney-blumenthal/hacker-distributes-memos-784091

and the hacker has now been extradited here -

https://www.rt.com/usa/334846-romanian-hacker-guccifer-extradition/

Guccifer, the infamous Romanian hacker who accessed emails of celebrities and top US officials, will be extradited to the United States, after losing a case in his home country’s top court.

Reuters reports that Lehel will come to the US under an 18-month extradition order, following a request made by the US authorities. Details of the extradition have not been made public, however.

(snip)

Perhaps most notably, Lehel was also the first source to uncover Hillary Clinton’s improper use of a private email account while she was Secretary of State, which the FBI is investigating as a potential danger to national security.

So pull out some because it looks like crime to me!

[DCBob]

101. Check back once the report is released and we can continue this discussion.

Enjoy your popcorn!

[IdaBriggs]

106. Fair enough. If I'm right, you're buying the drinks!

or

[DCBob]

108. Will do..

[revbones]

102. Wow good defense there. Way to refute the facts!

I wasn't aware that just saying something was "RW" would negate it.

You learn something new every day. Thanks!

[frylock]

119. Perhaps Mrs. Clinton can use that defense in her upcoming interview with James Comey.

[JudyM]

92. Damn the facts! If it's a criticism of Hillary it must be right wing talking points. Dems are

expected to fall in line before the Annointed One.

[IdaBriggs]

103. Yep. Remember what happened the last time a Clinton candidate had legal troubles -

and told everyone not to worry about it because his lawyers said he couldn't be personally sued while he was President for actions he committed BEFORE he was President?

As I recall, the Supreme Court handed him his ass, then the Republicans owned him, and then he got impeached for lying about cheating on his wife.

Let's totally go there again - keeping work emails at work and private email separate is too complicated for silly concerns like National Security! There are ALREADY two lawsuits where judges have agreed to have Hillary and her AIDS DEPOSED UNDER OATH.

I'm sure it's really no big deal. Again.

[JudyM]

115. Yep. Where's the "see no evil" emoji when it's needed...? nt

[eggman67]

167. Yeah, those Right Wing Obama appointees

are clearly out to get her

Funny how the State Dept managed to go four years without an IG.

[JudyM]

168. Didn't know about that little tidbit...

Say more, please ...

[eggman67]

182. I'll get you some info

When I'm at my PC tomorrow.

[eggman67]

183. After 5 Years, Is Obama Ready to Fill State Department Vacancy?

As promised, here's some info about it. It's the longest the position has ever been vacant, so she went for her entire term as Sec. of State with zero independent oversight from a President appointed, Senate confirmed IG. I cannot fathom why. And it's not like anyone was blocked, no one was ever even nominated. A truly independent IG would have put the kibosh on the homebrew server pronto, IMO, and we wouldn't be in this mess.

It was the Obama appointed IG (Steve Linick) along with Obama appointed Intelligence Community IG (Charles McCullough) who determined that there was top secret info on that server and made the referral to the FBI.

The same IGs that are now being ludicrously accused by the Clinton campaign & surrogates of colluding with Republicans in the Vast Right Wing Conspiracy. To his credit, Secretary Kerry is standing by the Office of the IG and has publicly expressed confidence in their ability to conduct an independent investigation.

Now you may hear there was what's known as an "Acting IG" but the problem is that an Acting IG is appointed by the SoS not the President, is not confirmed by the Senate and can be fired by the SoS at any time. Hardly a recipe for independent oversight.

I'm given to understand that the email dump contains further information about her involvement in the process of selecting an IG, but the email dump is huge and my time for searching it is limited.

IMO, this is a genuinely serious matter and sometimes there comes a time for people to put down the pom poms and take a good hard look at a member of their own team to see if they've screwed up. I think this is one of those times.

[link]http://www.huffingtonpost.com/joe-newman/after-5-years-is-obama-re_b_3118975.html[/link]

Secretary of State John Kerry says if it were up to him, the State Department would already have a permanent inspector general, a critical position that has been vacant for more than five years.

President Obama went his entire first term without nominating someone to fill the vacant position. The last time the State Department has had a permanent in-house watchdog to investigate fraud, waste and abuse, Muammar Gaddafi and Hosni Mubarak were entrenched as “dictators for life,” Condoleezza Rice was Secretary of State and the junior senator from Illinois was still a long shot for the Democratic nomination.

Why are these positions so important? Well, inspectors general conduct audits and investigations that identify wasteful government practices, fraud by individuals and government contractors, and other sorts of government misconduct.

Having a permanent inspector general, as opposed to an acting or interim IG, is critical. Permanent IGs at cabinet-level departments are appointed by the president, confirmed by the Senate and because they do not serve at the whim of department secretaries, they can act aggressively with less fear about losing their jobs. IGs appointed by the president can only be removed by the president. And while the IGs who are appointed by agency heads can be removed by the agency heads, no IG, no matter who appoints them, can be removed without Congress’ knowledge.

[Kelvin Mace]

47. That would be HRC

instructing someone to break the law by mishandling classified material.

[brush]

110. If it were that cut and dried she's have been perp walked in hand cuffs already

Come on, get real. There will be no charges. They'd have to do the same to Condeleeza Rice and Colin Powell.

I ain't gonna happen.

[Kelvin Mace]

112. Charges are not made until an investigation is complete

The investigation is "ongoing".

I am unaware of any emails/documents where Rice or Powell specifically instruct their aids to break the law. Sure, they might have done so, but they seem content to have not made an official record of the request.

[brush]

113. Don't hold your breath on this one.

[Kelvin Mace]

114. I'm not

I doubt the FBI is enthused about getting into such a situation in an election year. There is no upside for them doing their job. To me, the evidence is pretty clear, though I find her actions stupid, rather than criminal. But such is the law.

Of course, there is the law for you and I, and the law for the rich and powerful, so she will get every benefit of every doubt, which means she is unlikely to be charged.

[hrmjustin]

2. I have started using the ignore function since yesterday so I don't have to hear

them.

[DCBob]

22. I dont blame you.

Some of the stuff on this board lately is sickening.

[hrmjustin]

26. It makes me sad how they trash good Democrats here.

[Joe the Revelator]

27. Which good democrat would that be?

The one who voted for the Iraq War, is against Glass-Steagall, is for Kissinger, was against gay marriage before she was for it, is against a 15 dollar min wage, is pro-wall street, and is anti-transparency?

That 'Democrat'?

You have a very loose definition of 'good'.

[Ned_Devine]

55. Dude, you'll never get a response from them with that kind of truth

[DCBob]

44. Its amazing they can't see what they are doing.

I guess their profound bias blinds them.

[hrmjustin]

48. They see it. Thry are not what they say they are.

[DCBob]

49. Yes... I wonder that sometimes.

[hrmjustin]

53. They liet their slip show every now and then.

[Lurks Often]

81. "Their profound bias blinds them"

As does your profound bias. That you and most of Clinton's supporters here refuse to even consider that MAYBE, just MAYBE Clinton broke the law shows that all of you are at least as blind as you say Sander's supporters are.

[DCBob]

85. I have considered it and read all the available information and analysis.

My conclusion is that she didn't do anything illegal and the FBI wont indict.

[Kelvin Mace]

51. Good Democrats brag about their war criminals friends?

Yeah, this country is over.

[cannabis_flower]

77. Hands over ears! bla bla bla bla!!

Ignore is for babies!

[awake]

3. I just hope what ever the outcome it is clear and not grey

I will accept their findings. If the FBI gives her a clean slate fine if on the other hand they find wrong doing I would want her to drop out of the race for the sake of the party.

Would you not agree?

[DCBob]

13. I think its going to be a bit grey.

Nothing illegal but they will chastise her for setting up the server and mixing classified stuff with personal stuff.

[awake]

16. If it is black and white and they find wrong doing

would agree that Hillary should drop out of the race for the sake of the party?

[DCBob]

20. It wont be... not worth discussing.

[awake]

24. Not worth discussing then why did you start the discussion?

I have honestly shared my views on the possible out come of the FBI prop why do you feel hesitant to share what you think Hillary should do if the fact come out differently than you expect?

[DCBob]

25. Because its absurd.

Its like asking what should we do if she is hit by lightning.. which is probably more likely than being indicted.

[awake]

29. Ok so you agree there is a chance the question is how much of a chance

I am still waiting to hear your view as to what Hillary should do if the FBI does find wrong doing?

Care to share? Please do even if you think the chance is less than get hit by lighting?

[DCBob]

33. I would rather discuss what we do if she is hit by lightening... that's more likely.

So if that happens I think Joe Biden would step in.

[awake]

35. do you then also feel Joe Biden should step in if the FBI does find wrong doing?

[DCBob]

36. It wont happen.

[awake]

40. Just for the fun of it try imagine things do not go the way that you are so sure they will

If you can for just a moment imagine the FBI does find wrong doing what would you yourself want Hillary to do?

[DCBob]

41. Its not fun for me.

[awake]

50. I would think not, if that is the out come it will not be fun for a lot of people

It will be even less fun if the worst does happen that being the FBI finds wrong doing and Hillary does not step down. That would be a lot bigger downer for our Party than trying to imagine it happening right now. So what should she do if the worst does happen?

[DCBob]

52. I am more concerned about Bernie going Third Party than Hilary being indicted.

What should we do if he does that??

[awake]

57. Bernie has already said that he will not run as a third party

And I take him at his word for I know of no time that he has not keep his word.

[DCBob]

60. Are you sure??? Just for fun lets imagine he does... what should we do??

[awake]

65. I for one would lose trust in him and not support his run

see it is not that hard to think about what you might do if the out come is not something that you are sure of.

[DCBob]

66. Thank you for saying that.

I hope others feel the same.

[awake]

67. I guess you have no idea what Hillary should do if your prediction is wrong

[DCBob]

68. I really dont know.

It would be unprecedented. I have no idea.

[awake]

70. well thank you for thinking about it

With all of the time the FBI & the DOJ has spent on this their report I hope that the conclusion is clear ether statement that there was no wrong doing or that there was wrong doing for if it is not clear and Hillary goes on to win the nomination then the GOP will hit her with this issue day after day which will hurt not just Hillary but other Demarcates running for an office as well.

[angrychair]

171. Your ethics and sense of democracy is horrible

That you are willing flip right past Sanders and choose a person that has not even taken part in this primary as the next viable person to be chosen by Democrats as president is mind-boggling. Even if we go all the way to July, a significant number of states and voting Democrats would have chosen Sanders as their candidate but if HRC drops you are willing to shit on their votes and Sanders anyway to go directly to someone not even running?

Good thing Joe has a stronger moral compass and more respect for the voters than you.

[DCBob]

172. You are confused.

My sense of democracy and ethics are fine as is my common sense and judgement on who we need to beat the Republicans.. and Bernie is not that person.

[angrychair]

177. Millions of voters

And many states disagree, apparently including Wisconsin. If she is no longer viable due to an indictment (as I have stated in conversations with you already, I will live by FBI investigation results) than Sanders will be the Democratic Party's candidate. You Biden fantasy notwithstanding.

[DCBob]

180. Dont worry about it.. it wont happen.

[didact]

123. Good lord.."chastise her for setting up the server and mixing classified stuff with personal stuff."

[DCBob]

125. I am sure that is confusing to those who believe all the nonsense they hear on RW media.

It will become more clear once the report comes out.

[AgerolanAmerican]

4. then the leprechauns will ride in on their unicorns

and lead us to the pot of gold at the end of the rainbow!

[senz]

5. She'll still be the most distrusted candidate of 2016.

Reek.

[DCBob]

19. When she is cleared her numbers will jump.

This fake scandal will finally be seen for what it really is.

[bvf]

79. More whistling in the dark. n/t

[Jarqui]

6. The Bernsters won't have to say a thing. The GOP will be all over it

from now until November.

Put yourself in the shoes of Attorney General Lynch or CIA Director Comey:

Try to draft a convincing address to the press that clears Hillary and the Clinton Foundation of quid pro quo. How do you prove that to the general public and media in a few sound bites. All they'll really be able to say is they couldn't find anything.

The conspiracy theorists and the Karl Rove GOP howling partisan something will take over and finish the story in sinister ads financed by the Kochs.

Many Dems will give Hillary the benefit of the doubt. Not so many outside of the party will.

[geek tragedy]

9. "All they'll really be able to say is they couldn't find anything. "

that's all they need to say. The DOJ's job isn't to find proof of innocence. It's to find proof of guilt. If they don't find proof of guilt, they don't take action.

The GOP flying monkeys will have a fit, that's what they always do.

And by June 7th, people at DU won't be allowed to join them.

[DCBob]

18. No doubt.. much like Benghazi.

It doesnt matter.. they are lunatics regardless.. if not this then something else.

[restorefreedom]

7. poppycock. bernie does not need the fbi's help to win nt

[saturnsring]

62. no he now says he needs the superdelegates the bernie fans said are undemocratic

[restorefreedom]

73. they are undemocratic. and they should support the winner

it seems to me that bernie is referring to a situation where he is ahead or they are tied. the supers should not exist at all, and they should only ratify the winner of the vote. i doubt he expects to get the nom if he does not win pledged delegates or the pop vote.

[geek tragedy]

8. they'll accuse Obama and Lynch of impeachable offenses for covering it up.

some of them have already started.

[DCBob]

30. No doubt.

It will be rough few days until reality sets in.

[saturnsring]

63. before you know it the bernie clan will be cheering the gop

[Chasstev365]

10. Have you read about Sydney Blumenthal, Libya, and the Clinton Foundation?

I thought the whole email scandal was typical GOP Bull Shit, but it's pretty damming. Maybe you should read it before you sanctimiously absolve Hillary of all wrong doing.

[DCBob]

15. I will let the FBI do the talking on this.

Im just saying I seriously doubt they will find she did anything illegal.

[riderinthestorm]

11. I'm on record as saying I hope nothing's found

It's bad for down-ticket candidates and especially bad for President Obama.

I trust the FBI to do a thorough, non-partisan job and I'll respect the results.

[DCBob]

14. Yep.

No doubt they will. Comey is a straight shooter.

[baldguy]

17. I'm waiting to see what they do when Sanders concedes & throws his support behind her.

I'll bet there'll be a lot of new Trump voters that day.

[DCBob]

21. Yeah.. that will be difficult day for many on this board.

Bernie may be thrown under the bus with everyone else.

[Logical]

23. Wow, are you annoying. nt

[DCBob]

28. Yeah.. the truth hurts.

Come back and lets discuss once the report comes out.

[awake]

32. Please share you view now before the report

What should Hillary do if the report is not what you expect?

[DCBob]

37. I think she will be cleared of any illegal activity.

In fact I am sure she will.

[Ghost Dog]

181. Clearly, in that case she should, um, just ignore it?

Pull strings and have those people fired?
Abolish the FBI?
Throw a tantrum?

[Buzz cook]

31. Then the GOP will start hearings on it. nt

nt

[DCBob]

34. No doubt they will waste more time and taxpayer money on their futile effort to take her out.

Pathetic.

[TheCowsCameHome]

42. When did this happen, Nostradamus?

The huddled masses await your word.

[DCBob]

54. Check back in a few weeks and I will let you know.

[TheCowsCameHome]

72. Yeah. "The check is in the mail"

Got it.

[franannjo]

45. You will get what you deserve

4 years of endless hearings and impeachement procedures, and more deadlock than obama.

[DCBob]

56. The GOP will do that no matter what.

That's their only hope of staying relevant.

[redstateblues]

59. Bernie would be thrown under the bus once the millennials realized

Bernies promises were nothing but political pandering. Bernie, of course, would blame others as that is his MO. Pushing 80 he would be primaried. Karma is a bitch

[sadoldgirl]

46. Wrong start. Let's correct your title"

IF the FBI....

First she will have to go to an interview, and that
in itself will be a mark against her in the public's
view.

You seem to think that most voters trust her, yet
you cannot admit that this is not the case?!

[DCBob]

58. Hillary's trust numbers will go up dramatically once the report is released.

The public will then realize how unfair all this email scandal crap was.

[frylock]

61. Bookmarked

[DCBob]

64. Thank you.

Finally an intelligent response from a Bernie supporter!

[Warren DeMontague]

74. Q: What goes, "ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, plop"?

A: a man laughing his head off.

[Vinca]

75. Even if she's cleared it's not going to be clear sailing.

It's not a Republican administration that will be doing the clearing, it will be a Democratic administration. "Bernsters" won't be crying conspiracy, but I bet the GOP will be crying "cover up."

[JoePhilly]

76. They'll blame Obama ...

... which is what most of them have been doing for the last 7+ years anyway.

[Skwmom]

78. The emails isn't the big story. Is is all the MONEY and the business done while she was SOS.

[Jester Messiah]

80. There's no outcome where this ends well for you.

If the FBI doesn't press charges, it will be deemed a sign that the fix is in and the Queen of Corruption has slimed her way out of another sticky situation, largely of her own making.

If the FBI does press charges, then your candidate is under indictment.

Either way, it's not what you'd call a positive situation for seeking the presidency. Any sane person would prefer a candidate untainted by all this mess.

[Demsrule86]

82. Seriously you need to stop and think about the consequences of helping elect Republicans.

As someone said on this board...on her worst day Hillary Clinton is better than any Republican. Bernie will not win...I looked at Nate Silver's numbers...the things he needs to do ...he can't do...win California by 13 points? Please. And the super delegates won't back a candidate that lost the popular vote and doesn't have the delegates...so you have a choice..vote Dem and save the country or go home and pout and wait for the revolution which will never happen...you all want everything overnight...it takes hard work and voting in off-year elections as well...one man or woman can not do what has to be done to save this country from the right. You blame Obama for not providing liberal stuff...well where is the liberal house and liberal senate that might have helped him...oh wait you all worked yourselves up into a giant snit and stayed home thus providing us a crazy rightie house and a judge borking Senate.

[islandmkl]

86. 'where is the liberal house and liberal senate...'???

have you been involved in the Democratic Party long?

that question is simply answered, "The Third Way/old DLC/DNC version of the national Democratic Party has steered it rightward since 1988, garnered two Presidents and lost total control of both houses of Congress, all while endorsing corporate-influenced policies and pursuing favor (and money) from the wealthy."

the 'snit' you call it is a cumulative reaction to the rightist leadership that, by design and calculation, took control of the Party post-1988...

but, if you don't know the difference in post-1988 and the fundamental core principles that the modern (20th century) Democratic Party adhered to...well, then you just wouldn't know...

[Jester Messiah]

96. If you're worried about electing Republicans, then you need to take a look over here.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1251&pid=1613550

Bottom line, the surest route to President Trump is via nominating Hillary.

[DCBob]

83. I disagree.

Once the FBI clears her she will be seen as the innocent victim of yet another RW conspiracy. FBI Director Comey is well respected on both sides of the aisle.. most believe he will not succumb to political pressure from the WH or anywhere else. If his report clears her then most will take that as the truth.

[Jester Messiah]

98. You're wagering a lot on that.

And I would counsel you and other Hillary folk not to bet what you can't afford to lose.

[DCBob]

99. From what I know about this, I think its a good bet.

[Skwmom]

107. That would be the case if people trusted our govt. Sadly that is not the case and the level of

distrust is rising daily.

[NorthCarolina]

88. Actually, neither Hillary's emails nor Benghazi have any bearing at all

on my support of Sanders.

[Armstead]

89. Wrong,. You underestimate two things

Even if she gets off scot-free legally, it is an example of the arrogance and murky behavior that has long bothered many people about the Clintons, and which they keep repeating.

It was a fuck-up based on her belief that the normal rules and ethics that apply to little people -- and accepted standards of behavior -- do not apply to her and Bill. That is what will last in the public's view of her.....and in the minds of many voters in November.

It is a murky grey cloud the Clintons created and perpatuate themselves -- it's not just a result of right wing memes.

Don't forget (citing the biggest and most grotesque example)....The GOP made far too much of impeachment of Bill. But the truth is that Bill had illicit (and disgusting) form of sex in the White House with an intern -- and he continually lied about it, and allowed the GOP to drag it out....They do variations of that in all of their business and political dealings to this day.

But beyond that, Sanders and his supporters are fighting hard on the ISSUES. That still counts for something...or should.

[DCBob]

93. I dont think she did anything terribly wrong.

The server thing was done for control and convenience. I might have done the same. Mixing classified with personal was a mistake but not illegal. Sending classified information via her personal account was not the best choice but that's wasn't illegal unless she did it knowingly and willingly... which there is no evidence of that. I just dont see the horrific things many think she has done.

[Kentonio]

117. Private & public are kept seperate not just for security reasons but allow for clear FOIA oversight.

If this was a Republican SOS who had deleted tens of thousands of emails and then just claimed they were all private, would you believe them?

Putting classified material on a server where it can be hacked far more easily is just ridiculous. Denying you had any classified material, and then being discovered to have emailed an aide asking them to remove classification headings and send them unsecured meanwhile is proof of both gross incompetency and dishonesty.

[DCBob]

118. There was nothing illegal in all that.

She may have broken some rules and regs but nothing that would rise to the level of an indictment. Its my understanding the mishandling of classified information is quite common among federal officials. If they charge her with anything they will have to go after hundreds of others who have done similar things. They simply are not going there.

[intrepidity]

138. So, effectively, your argument is: "But everyone does it!"

Because if that is what you are saying, then just fuck it all now and flush away our legal system.

[DCBob]

149. Because there are legitimate reasons for it happening during the course of doing their jobs.

Sometimes it cant be avoided due to an urgent crisis situation and sometimes mistakes are made.

[intrepidity]

162. Yeah, but that's not what we're talking about, is it? n/t

[DCBob]

166. What are we talking about.. help me.

[frylock]

120. You are positively clueless as to the gravity of these charges.

[DCBob]

124. I would say exactly the same to you and others with similar thinking.

[frylock]

126. Really? What experience do you have in IT security, and what level of clearance have you held?

[DCBob]

128. A bit...

I'm a systems/software engineer but that really has nothing to do with my opinion. I have read a ton of articles about this and its obvious to me she is not going to be charged with anything illegal. She made some mistakes but that's as far as it goes.

[frylock]

129. No security clearance then?

She didn't make mistakes. Everything she did was calculated.

[DCBob]

131. Actually I did have low level clearance a few years ago but its expired.

But that has nothing to do with my opinions about this. To me its common sense. You would have to prove intent and that is very difficult to do.

[intrepidity]

140. Look upthread for the email about removing headers

While that specific email itself is not the issue, the very fact that she suggests what she does (to remove headers etc) proves that she knows very well that security is something she needs to pay attention to. And she is versed in how to circumvent the rules.

[DCBob]

150. How do you know that message contained classified information?

What if the message was urgent and needed to sent out immediately and couldn't wait for the fax to be repaired? There are a number of scenarios that would provide a legitimate explanation.

[intrepidity]

161. Way to miss the point n/t

[frylock]

141. Her intent was to circumvent the secure network (SIPRNet).

[DCBob]

146. How do you know that??

[frylock]

157. Oh, Bob.

[DCBob]

160. As I thought.. nothing.

[frylock]

164. Correct! You think nothing!

I believe we're making a breakthrough here!

[DCBob]

173. Ugly mindless comment.

[intrepidity]

139. "The server thing was done for control ..."

Exactly. So you *do* somewhat understand the problem.

[DCBob]

145. No.. whats wrong with wanting to have control over your communications?

[intrepidity]

163. Nothing. When you aren't the SoS of the USA and their are laws about it. n/t

[morningfog]

91. It is not the only hope for Bernie to get the nom and not they way I would want it.

The Democratic Party would be destroyed top to bottom in that result.

If/When the FBI clears Hillary, I will breathe a huge sigh of relief.

[DCBob]

97. If I was Bernie supporter I wouldn't want the nomination that way either.

I have no doubt she will be cleared but for sure many will be breath a sigh of relief once this is over with.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

94. The perception of wrongdoing is often as damaging is the reality of wrongdoing.

It's not what "Bernistas" think that should worry you. It's what the average voter thinks. Hillary is already considered dishonest and untrustworthy by most of the people. Whether the FBI clears her of breaking any laws is almost irrelevant to the impact this has already had on the nose holding ability of average voters.

[DCBob]

95. I think it will have the reverse impact from what you are saying.

Once the FBI clears her she will be seen as the innocent victim of yet another RW conspiracy. FBI Director Comey is well respected on both sides of the aisle.. most believe he will not succumb to political pressure from the WH or anywhere else. If his report clears her then most will take that as the truth.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

105. And, if she is indicted?

I disagree with your premise that she will be seen as the victim of a RW conspiracy. I think she will be seen as another corrupt, but powerful, politician who got away with breaking the rules.

As a "Bernista" I just see it as a another display of Hubris and stupidity which she's trying (again) to write off as a "mistake".

[EndElectoral]

104. Is it when or if?

[dragonfly301]

109. If the FBI doesn't indict

can they recommend that she lose her security clearance? How does one function as POTUS w/o security clearance? Also, if I understand the situation correctly...is this just one of several FBI investigations? Is there another investigation dealing with the Clinton Foundation and pay/play or is there just one large investigation on the whole slimey mess?

[MineralMan]

111. Some will simply say "the fix is in" and continue

apace with the attacks on the candidate. That's my prediction.

[NurseJackie]

121. But how long will they be allowed to do that here?

[MineralMan]

122. I used to think I knew.

I'm not so sure now. I'm sure there will be a lot of testing going on here, once it's clear who the nominee will be. I imagine that we'll know almost certainly by the end of April.

Frankly, I'm not looking forward to the transition period that will come between primary season and general election season. I will probably simply not participate much in discussions during that time.

My focus is on GOTV efforts, really. That's not the most popular topic on DU most of the time.

I'm fairly sure there is going to be a period of time when DU will become even less friendly and collegial than it is right now. I don't look forward to that in any way, and will simply try to get past that time period as best I can.

[Codeine]

116. One does not all prey to Clinton Derangement

Syndrome as a result of logical thinking, therefore no amount of logic will change the mind of those in its clutches.

[Attorney in Texas]

127. The FBI is looking at criminal charges. Whatever the FBI does will not affect the civil cases based

on Hillary's violations of federal law.

If the DA decides not to prosecute a drunk driver, that does not mean that the surviving family members of the person killed in the drunk driving crash lose their civil suit. It's like that.

Or remember the OJ trial; acquittal in a criminal court does not preclude losing a related civil suit based on the same illegal behavior.

PS - It is not Sanders supporters that Hillary should be worried about - the FBI will not likely have a final answer in time to affect the Democratic nomination. Sanders supporters are worried about the effect of this issue in the general election and how easy it will be to vault Cruz into the presidency if we make the mistake of nominating Hillary. This is a general election issue; not a primary issue except that primary voters ought to assess what effect this issue will have in the general election.

[DCBob]

130. What civil cases??

That would require that some individual person to have been injured or wronged by her email situation. That's nuts.

[Attorney in Texas]

134. Nuts? Do you get a newspaper? Does your computer have a web browser? Are you being misleading or did

really post something without knowing even the most basic facts about the topic you posted about?

Are you truly ignorant of the civil cases or are you just shitting us?

[DCBob]

136. Please explain Mr law expert how this becomes a civil case.

I dont get it.

[Attorney in Texas]

142. Here is a link:

www.google.com

[DCBob]

147. LOL.. as I suspected.

[zappaman]

132. Jury results

AUTOMATED MESSAGE: Results of your Jury Service

On Thu Mar 31, 2016, 01:46 PM an alert was sent on the following post:

So when the FBI report clears Hillary of illegal activity...
http://www.democraticunderground.com/12511613135

REASON FOR ALERT

This post is disruptive, hurtful, rude, insensitive, over-the-top, or otherwise inappropriate.

ALERTER'S COMMENTS

Childish name-calling and pure, unmitigated trollery designed to antagonize and divide, not to lead to meaningful discussion.

You served on a randomly-selected Jury of DU members which reviewed this post. The review was completed at Thu Mar 31, 2016, 01:50 PM, and the Jury voted 3-4 to LEAVE IT.

Juror #1 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: Hiding based on D-Bag Clause.
Juror #2 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: Oh please. What a nonsense alert.
Juror #3 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #4 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: I agree that the post is childish, but it does not come to the level to where it should be deleted.
Juror #5 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #6 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: It's silly season and we'll be seeing a lot of silly posts. Not worth censoring. Let's save the alerts for actual TOS infringements.
Juror #7 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: No explanation given

Thank you very much for participating in our Jury system, and we hope you will be able to participate again in the future.

[DCBob]

133. LOL!!

Good grief... alerting this??? Some of you people have sunk to new lows.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

135. Kick .

[Prism]

137. She's already caught in illegal activity

By having aides strip mails of their classifications so they could be sent nonsecure.

The question is whether a Democratic DOJ will actually go after the likely nominee of the party during an election year.

Probably not. I really don't see that happening. They'll do a fairly thorough job of figuring out what happened, but I cannot imagine an indictment will ever be in the pipes.

Mainly because higher ups in government don't get charged like you and me. If some lower level type did what she did, they'd be in prison. But as Petraeus showed us, high ups just get wrist slapped.

[DCBob]

148. No she hasn't.

You dont know the circumstances of that incident. Did this message actually contain classified information? Was the situation urgent and couldn't wait for the fax repairman? Isnt the SOS allowed to make decisions like this??

[One_Life_To_Give]

143. Opinion will depend upon where one stands politically

HRC Supporters will cite it as proof of a Repug conspiracy to trash HRC's chances.

Cons will belive that Obama covered up the crimes they are sure she committed.

Independents will conclude it wasn't Illegal but the Moral and Ethics of it are a concern.

[okieinpain]

144. so after reading many posts i'm really starting to believe white democrats

really don't like hillary. lol, so what will be said if bernie beats her out, who will catch the blame this time. who would have thought this would happen.

[JesterCS]

151. You know these threads are

Getting highly annoying and just plain assholish. My block list is filling up quick. Can we act like fucking adults?

[DCBob]

154. I guess the truth can sometimes be seen that way...

by those with a twisted view of reality.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

165. As Sista Souljah famously rapped

As Sista Souljah famously rapped "two wrongs don't make a right, but they damn sure make us even."

Words can not express the contempt I have for and the low esteem I hold those who push the indictment fantasy scenario.

I would say it here. I would say it there. I would say it anywhere.

[Marr]

152. Hypothetically, if Clinton is indicted, will you call it a right wing conspiracy? /nt

[DCBob]

153. She wont be.

[Marr]

155. That's why I said 'hypothetically'.

I don't expect her to be indicted, either. But I never claim to know the future.

Again, hypothetically, if she is indicted, will you call it a right-wing conspiracy?

[DCBob]

156. I dont like hypotheticals.

It like saying what do we do if she gets hits by lightening... which is probably a more likely scenario.

[Marr]

158. Your original post is a hypothetical. /nt

[DCBob]

159. True but its an extremely high probability of happening.

Your's is a RW and Bernie die hards fantasy. Not worth discussing.

[Marr]

169. Sorry, no.

This isn't 'what if Jesus comes back tomorrow?' vs. 'what if the new Batman movie sucks?'.

We're talking about the outcome of an FBI investigation for which neither of us has any privileged information. While I agree with you that an indictment seems unlikely, you cannot definitively dismiss it. It's very much within the realm of possibility.

It seems to me that you're quite interested in discussing hypotheticals-- but only if they reinforce your opinions.

[DCBob]

174. I can "definitively dismiss it."

Its bogus.

[TheSarcastinator]

170. LOL: you like hypotheticals just fine

as long as they fit with your cognitive bias. Hillary-ous hypocrisy!

[DCBob]

175. As long as they have any grounding in common sense.

Hillary being indicted is off the charts ridiculous.

[peacebird]

176. Are you so sure they WILL? 150 agents researching her.....

Surely little Debbie hopes so, but...

[baldguy]

179. the "150 agents" is a RW lie which has been debunked repeatedly.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/12511607014

http://www.democraticunderground.com/12511608380

Chris Hayes just did a whole segment on it.

[MrWendel]

178. "Well

you know, just because we parrot Fox doesn't mean we AGREE with them or anything..."