So when Clinton is rebuked but not indicted

[Godhumor]

Are you able to accept that as the appropriate level of punishment? Or is it further proof of shenanigans?

[elleng]

1. It's her bad JUDGMENT, criminal or not.

I don't care whether or not she's indicted; her decision-making process is flawed, and as such she should not serve as President.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

2. With all due respect isn't that up to the voters?

[Godhumor]

4. Not if they vote for the wrong person, obviously n/t

[libdem4life]

5. With all due respect, should not one be allowed an opionion?

She doesn't think she'll be elected. If you feel that in any way affects or reduces the chances of your own opionion, well, then that is up to you.

It makes more sense to allow another opinion and state your own, that rather than implying superiority of opinion...with a rhetorical and snarky response. Looks less authoritatian and superior.

JMO

[elleng]

16. Yes, and I am a voter.

IF the officials think she committed indictable offenses, she should be indicted, and if only 'misdemeanors,' suitable steps should be taken.

[Duval]

20. It is up to the voters only if they know the facts.

Our media continues to do us a terrible disservice. Thousands of Bernie supporters know exactly what he stands for.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

24. It must be hard to talk to us plebeians from the pedestal you and your associates put yourselves on.

It must be hard to talk loud enough so us plebeians can hear you from the pedestals you and your associates put yourselves on.

Liberalism isn't perfect and the elitism of some of its adherents has always been one of its more unattractive facets.

[St Aug girl]

3. It is a little disingenuous to keep hyping the voters' will.

Almost all the votes were cast before we had all of the information that is now available. In addition we will have all voted before the FBI report is released. I know that Clintonites would not be swayed but there maybe voters who would now vote a different way.

[libdem4life]

7. Also, before Sanders was even a known name, let alone

a national political figure. Lots of things have changed and continue to change.

[Dem2]

9. Nice, I see the newest excuse being created

"The voters had no idea that Hillary had used a private server - it's not like Bernie said in the first debate that he could give a flying fuck about her emails or anything."

[AzDar]

25. Wrong (again). He said he's tired of HEARING about them.Of course, now that that the IG Report shows

she has BEEN LYING, and that there were multiple hacking attempts, and that she HAS NOT cooperated AT ALL as she claims... that shit needs to be reassessed. And it will be.

You're Welcome.

[Dem2]

26. Yes I am well aware that you hate her f****** guts

I can't take anything you say seriously I'm sorry you are obsessed with slandering and destroying Hillary

[BillZBubb]

57. Hillary's actions and lies are destroying her. Don't blame the messenger.

[Dem2]

60. Yes, that's what they all say

[dchill]

11. Exactly. But lying and bait and switch are just fine with them.

[Duval]

22. Very good point. nt

[brush]

6. Sour grapes. Sanders started out good but ran a poor campaign after the losing started

"His campaign committed a series of fatal strategic errors mostly attributable to incompetent staff work and an unforgivable lack of preparation against the Clinton Machine.

Among the bullet points in the campaign’s post-mortem, we can’t help but to note that Bernie & Company mistakenly went negative against Hillary, unnecessarily careening onto and embracing the low-road. Bernie, meanwhile, deeply excoriated the Democratic Party establishment and the superdelegate system, only to circle back, groveling now for establishment support after it’s too late. The Bernie get-out-the-vote effort failed to turn impressively massive rally crowds into actual votes, time and time again. Bernie himself stoked discontent and conspiracy-mongering within the party by misleading his supporters about delegate math while also failing to properly educate his ground-game activists about voter-registration and primary rules state-to-state.

Perhaps his deadliest error occurred when he pledged to run his campaign solely on individual donations famously averaging $27 when, in a general election matchup, he would’ve suddenly confronted a stratospheric pile of GOP cash that would’ve invariably crushed his chances unless he backpedaled. The list goes on and on. And now he’s willing to participate in a stunt — a debate between the GOP winner and the Democratic loser. A political exhibition bout.

These are all factors to take into consideration, and a farcical stunt-debate between Bernie and Trump wouldn’t have ameliorated Bernie’s self-inflicted damage, nor would it have sufficed as a last-minute Hail Mary. At the end of the day, it only would’ve managed to illustrate how a failed Democratic candidate was just as willing as Trump to debase himself within the idiocratic narrative."

— Bob Cesca is a regular contributor to Salon.com.

[NCTraveler]

8. They will look just like Gowdy in the end. Bank on it.

They will claim a guy by the name of Mr. Foster called into C SPAN and sounded very credible with new information on the emails. They will demand the DOJ hunt down Mr. Foster and interrogate him.

That is what Gowdy is currently doing. No bullshit. Except the caller Gowdy is after called into the Hannity show. That is what the right wingers spinning the email story will be doing. No punishment will be enough for the eternally angry and pessimistic right winger.

[CorkySt.Clair]

12. Interesting theory

My money on is one final assault on Obama because he let Hillary off the hook or something close to that.

Many Berners hate the president as much or more than the Republicans do so blaming Obama would be the go to route for a lot of them.

[leveymg]

27. I think you pay more attention to RW media than any of us.

The criminal case makes itself in a fair reading of primary documents. No need for anyone's spin. The obfuscation and distraction is non-essential.

[NCTraveler]

29. Thank you for telling me what I do.

You aren't very good at it.

[leveymg]

33. Just observing the obvious.

[NCTraveler]

36. Sounds like some self reflection would serve you better.

I guess it's not as much fun as erroneously pointing fingers.

[leveymg]

39. Do you have an original thought on this, or when you lack one, just go ad hominem?

I guess that's part of the course they teach at Camp Weathervane. It's so infrequent that someone on your side engages on the issues.

Right on the face of it, she's she's violated 18 USC 793 (e) and (f). Both felonies. A case can be made for (g). If you don't know what I'm talking about, you probably shouldn't be posting on the subject. Same goes for the OP. If you want something to chew on, start here and follow the links: http://www.democraticunderground.com/12511898037

[NCTraveler]

44. More personal attacks.

Maybe you can clear it up by showing me where I insinuated Cali has voted. That's your claim. It was truly made up.

I don't think you get that the personal attacks are comical to me. What isn't cool is your dishonest about the things I have said.

Your post is a one hundred percent personal attack. The funny part of it is you trying to promote your superiority with your issues comment. You do so while completely ignoring any issues and being dishonest about things I have said at the same time.

[leveymg]

46. Go back and look at my post. I brought it back to the issues.

I'm also guilty of going personal, occasionally, and admit it. I also apologize, which is unusual for anyone here. Let's get back to the issue. Shall we?

[NCTraveler]

48. I see why you told me to go back and look at your posts. Lol

[leveymg]

58. LOL isn't substantive. It's signature Sid Dithers.

Let's give it one more try for something more on topic.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/12511898037

[nadinbrzezinski]

35. Good point

She watched fox, I read the actual emails and ask actual experts. She watches the twist and turns of the Congressman, I curl up to OIG reports.

I prefer to make my own mind with official docs, and from those, not a nothing burger

[NCTraveler]

37. Play nice.

They are on your team. We are working to win them over every day.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1251&pid=2053794

[nadinbrzezinski]

38. You misunderstand I do not have any team

I am not a partisan.

So want any links to primary documents

[NCTraveler]

40. It's a nothing burger. Smile.

I would love to share photography work with you sometime. I have gained professional status. It's no longer just a hobby though I will obviously hold onto my business. Beyond excited. We should check out each other's work sometime.

[nadinbrzezinski]

41. Whatever

I will wait for the FBI. My ethics are far from situational and people are indeed serving long terms for the same exact shit

[NCTraveler]

45. And the photography?

I'm really excited about that. I know you are a professional photog as well. Would be great to share work.

[nadinbrzezinski]

47. You can go visit RSD, it is posted there regularly

[NCTraveler]

50. I don't know what RSD is.

Is it a site for us photogs? That's cool. Do you have a link?

[nadinbrzezinski]

51. My paper

repoprtingsandiego.com

And no I am not interested in running a place for photographers. or any other site anymore beyond hard news and well policy. SO I suspect that is not a site you will want to read. I mean it has links to icky stuff like GAO reports.

[NCTraveler]

53. I had no clue you owned a paper.

DUers really are a kick ass group of people.

I never asked you to start a photog site. Lol.

I have read many GAO reports. They show a lot. I'll have to check your paper out.

I still think we can share photos sometime.

[CorkySt.Clair]

55. It's a Wordpress blog, actually

There is no actual "paper" that is printed.

[NCTraveler]

56. Ahhh. It's a blog.

I just went there for a minute and it looks like a very valuable local resource. Excellent material. Might I suggest an editor? It would help a lot. I have a solid name for you if you want. He lives in NY but that shouldn't be a problem.

[nadinbrzezinski]

59. A blog registered as a paper with the state of California

and with staff that is credentialed press. I know the locals hate that. As to your suggestion for an editor, expected slam. I am used to it, But I suggest you stay away, We actually do icky stuff like policy. And that is really, really, really icky.

[NCTraveler]

62. Policy is my thing. As I said, the material looks good.

The editor comment wasn't a slam in anyway. It only takes one minute to see one is needed. That alone would take what I saw from good to great.

Why do the locals around you hate credentialed staff? I wasn't aware of such a thing.

[nadinbrzezinski]

63. DU'ers do, they know who they are

[NCTraveler]

64. Ahhh. It's them. Got it.

Let's share photos sometime. It might be fun and could put some of the negativity behind us.

Have a great day.

[libtodeath]

10. I am more worried how it will play out in the GE.

[MineralMan]

13. The FBI doesn't rebuke people.

That's not part of its charter, really. It issues recommendations to the Department of Justice. That's its job.

We'll see what comes out of the FBI. I doubt it will be a recommendation that charges be brought.

[Godhumor]

14. Well aware. Why I Specifically didn't say FBI

Ultimately, I expect the result to be a "This probably shouldn't have happened and controls will have to be put in place. But nothing here is explicitly actionable."

[leveymg]

28. No, MM. The FBI investigates and reports on crimes. Just the facts. Recommendation is optional.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

15. It's proof of the power of money and connections.

[frylock]

17. Sure, a slap on the wrist should be sufficient.

[Vinca]

18. If she's indicted, Republicans go after her. If she's not, they go after the Democratic Party and,

in particular, the Obama administration for giving her a pass. She's put us in a lose-lose situation.

[HooptieWagon]

54. That's what it boils down to.

Whether or not the DoJ indicts her, the Republicans will use the evidence to attack her, and the Obama Admin. So ultimately the question is does she go quietly, or kicking and screaming and dragging the party and Obamas legacy down with her. The answer is sadly predictable.

[morningfog]

19. It's not really up to me.

If she or any of her staff are indicted, we lose in November.

I don't think the FBI "rebukes" at the conclusion of criminal investigations, so not sure what that even means.

[AgingAmerican]

21. If and when that happens voters will unleash their punishment

[Demsrule86]

23. Don't care about it at all

rightie bull shit from a rightie Republican...FBI guy...why Obama did you nominate this joker?

[nadinbrzezinski]

30. It would prove the double standard with the well connected

A USN Petty Officer SS is about to serve 15-30 years in Club fed for losing control of classified information.

[pinebox]

31. She lied to America

Plain and simple and did so for over a year straight. It isn't the fact she is indicted, it's the fact she can't be trusted and is shady. From her foundation taking money from countries she gave weapon deals to to this, to Haiti, the history is quite clear. The only shenanigans are coming from Hillary.

And now Trump is hitting her on all of this? My head hurts........this is going to be a rough ride. Go grab a beer, we're going to need it.

[Waiting For Everyman]

32. Since when is a rebuke punishment?

That would be news to the people serving time for far less than she has done.

Her total disrespect for the law makes her unacceptable for office. Not even local city council. She has proven beyond all doubt that she cannot be relied upon to uphold the law. And she's a damn lawyer on top of it! There is no fixing that.

If the justice system fails to hold her accountable, the court of public opinion will have its say; and if that fails and she is elected, I have no doubt that she will be impeached, and she will richly deserve it.

For her to even run for this nomination if unforgivable. She, and the Dem Party have made a fraud out of this entire election by LYING to the public for an entire year about what she has done.

And even now, under active FBI investigation, they are not even done lying for her and trying to push this through. Everyone who participates in that shares the responsibility for it.

[VulgarPoet]

34. I just don't give a fuck anymore. It'll just reaffirm everything I grew up knowing about this nation

So long as you have enough money, you're untouchable. If I diverted my NIPR-side work emails to a server I'd set up in the barracks and someone found out, do you know how quick I'd have gotten an Art 15 and dishonorable discharge? And that's just for NIPR email. That's not anything that came out of her server. So y'know what, I don't give a fuck anymore. It won't change anything.

[Autumn]

42. Is she were to be rebuked ,and I don't believe for a second she would be indicted

The rebuke would just prove her bad judgment. Why would people want to vote for a person that has proven to use bad judgement in a very important position in our government? Doesn't make sense to me. If she's rebuked for this the appropriate response is for her to step down and end her presidential run.

[floppyboo]

43. I'd accept her being rebuked, as long as she stepped aside

[NorthCarolina]

49. There is no justice for the top 10%. Justice is only for the undesireables. -nt-

[lumberjack_jeff]

52. Will you consider this rebuke a feature of her resume?

Yay! She wasn't indicted for her illegal acts!

We can do better.

[Orsino]

61. Depends on what she is rebuked or indicted for...

...not to mention the possibility of a substantive exoneration.