destroying Obama on meddling with the Hillary FBI investigation....

something that is under investigation.

It's two sides of the same coin, really, namely, Is this primary being rigged for Hillary? For me, that is not even a question. Media should have been asking it since 2012, when everyone on MSNBC and from both parties was calling Hillary the presumptive Democratic nominee. "The nomination is hers if she wants it. If she decides to run, no Democrat will even oppose her."

I heard that again and again, including from MSNBC show hosts, before Obama even got re-elected. It was jaw dropping and highly suspicious.

If media had a shred of honesty, they would have been questioning those statements then, instead of echoing them. No one on MSNBC has standing to start casting stones now.

And, what did Morning Joe do this morning after declaring the four words of the day to be rigged, rigged, rigged, rigged? Treat her like the nominee.

you're absolutely right, but at the very least he's at least mentioning this shit publicly... unlike Maddow who is fully on the "I'll do or say anything to help Hillary" train.

Not because of her politics, but because I found her style so incredibly condescending, as though her audience were a bunch of kindergarteners to whom she had to try painstakingly to teach the rocket science only she understood. It's hard for something to be simultaneously annoying and incredibly tedious and boring, but she mastered that formula! It's a shame, because she is intelligent--though perhaps not as far above the rest of the population as she seems to think she is. If she were more interesting, she may have been interesting.



I don't think she has much longer to milk whatever cred she stored up during the Bush years.

Very early in his first term he publicly announced that there would be no torture investigations of CIA officials.

fighting on behalf of DOMA -- at least in circuits in which it had been ruled unconstitutional. However, that was not an investigation that was already underway.

The independence of agencies that answer to the President is a convenient myth. No one is independent of his or her employer. That's why we have special prosecutors from time to time. I think Obama's comment may have provided the Republicans to ask for appointment of a special prosecutor in this case, but the politics of it are such that they probably will not.

By the time I turned it on, they were on Obama weighing in on the email thing.

Mika asks, "Why do people even vote when the system is rigged against them?"
I know the feeling. Here in Washington State, every single County went for Bernie, but yet Hillary Clinton has the pledged super delegates already lined up. This is wrong!

Hillary will have enough pledged delegates from every state plus the popular vote to secure the nomination.

Rigged, I tell ya!

Interesting to see the panel say all this. And Mika says "why even vote?"

not airing of conservative program theme working to elect Republicans by badmouthing the party's procedures. IMO, this kind of post doesn't belong here.

Btw, the Democratic Party's proportional delegate system is by far more representative than the GOP's winner-take-all primaries. Mika's partisan spin is outrageously hypocritical and dishonest. I bet dad's so proud.

with regards to segami...


http://www.democraticunderground.com/12511703498

This was adjudicated by the SCOTUS back 2000 when it struck down California's blanket primary system (CA Democratic Party v Jones).

In that case - which saw a 7-2 decision by the SCOTUS - the SCOTUS found that a blanket primary violated a political party's right of association, as guaranteed in the First Amendment. The Court found that "Proposition 198 forces political parties to associate with—to have their nominees, and hence their positions, determined by—those who, at best, have refused to affiliate with the party, and, at worst, have expressly affiliated with a rival. A single election in which the party nominee is selected by nonparty members could be enough to destroy the party." The majority opinion went ton to say that Proposition 198 takes away a party's "basic function" to choose its own leaders and is functionally "both severe and unnecessary."

At the time, the SF Gate reported:

"The Supreme Court struck down California's system of "blanket primaries" yesterday, ruling that political parties have the right to exclude nonparty members from the process of choosing their candidates.

"The 7-to-2 decision invalidates state election rules -- in place since 1998 -- that permitted voters, regardless of party affiliation, to vote for candidates of any party.

"Justice Antonin Scalia, writing for the majority, said forcing the parties to honor the votes of nonmembers amounted to a "stark repudiation of freedom of political association," and violated a party's ability to control its own nominating process and define its identity."

If political parties have the right to exclude non-party members from choosing their candidates, they certainly have the right to "control their own nominating process" as noted in the SCOTUS ruling.