lol

Hillary already has the majority of super delegates on her side. Why would they switch to Sanders if she makes it to the convention ahead in pledged delegates and the popular vote? They can't be that delusional, therefore, I go with disingenuous. Weaver and Devine know that they are just plain lying to the media and his supporters.

From their loyal (and deluded) followers.

1991 than 2015.

that they would attempt to subvert the will of the people. Democracy? What democracy? Do they think that they are in Cuba or Chavez' Venezuela? Maybe Putin's Russia.

states where he won the popular vote ?

primaries. Tad Devine would be destroying his career if he tries to sabotage the Democratic party by trying to hijack the Super Delegates

Who the hell do they think they're fooling??? Both have been around the block long enough to know that whichever candidate has the most pledged delegates will be the nominee. At this point, they are just behaving like lying weasels. Their spiel is only for Sanders supporters' ears, a way to keep them energized and voting. Both of them know full well that their candidate will not be the nominee.

that and be considered seriously, especially if Hillary does well next week.

Actually, the numbers are pretty much over for them, and the campaign should start toning down the anti-Hillary rants

Sanders will continue his criticism of the establishment and the 1%, but I think that he will not make any attacks against Hillary.

I highly doubt that any "corporate whores" are going to flip for a LOSER that trails Hillary by MILLIONS of votes!

WTH kinda drugs are these idiots on anyway???

He gave it his all and brought into the political process many young people, but at some point he'll have to face the reality on the ground. I do think, though, that Weaver and Devine are shameless hustlers giving Sanders bad advice.

Bernie may have gotten a bit too robust with some of his comments
but at the end of the day he knows the Republibans are a disaster.

Weaver and Devine are hustlers and the promise to take it to the convention
and hope to flip undeclared delegates is just some red meat for Bernies supporters.

They will continue to raise money and campaign in each state but I'm expecting
the rhetoric to be toned down over the next months and Bernie will
endorse her at the convention and encourage his
supporters to vote for her.

If they can influence them into switching to him, sweet! More power to him, sayeth I.

There's zero chance that super delegates would switch to a candidate who is behind in pledged delegates and the popular vote. It's not going to happen.

Stealing an election is an act of fraud, not a voluntary act by super delegates. Sorry.

because of Superdelegates and not because of the will of the voters, it would be stealing the election and it would tear the Democratic Party apart. Why isn't it stealing the election if BS does it? What excuse could possibly exist for it to be wrong for Secretary Clinton and ok for BS?

`

After next Tuesday it will become clearer that there's no path ahead for Sanders. He'll probably stay until all states have voted, but I doubt that he would try to flip super delegates. That would go against any democratic principle.

It is an Oligarchy.

http://mediamatters.org/blog/2016/03/21/law-professor-explains-why-hillary-clinton-wont/209438

University of Michigan Professor of Law and Sociology and former Department of Homeland Security classification expert Richard Lempert debunked common right-wing talking points about the FBI investigation into former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton's use of a personal server for government emails to explain why Clinton "won't be indicted and shouldn't be."

Right-wing media have hyped the idea of an imminent criminal indictment over Hillary Clinton's use of a private email server despite experts consistently debunking claims that Clinton violated the law. In a March piece for American Prospect, Lempert wrote that Clinton's email use did not constitute criminal conduct, noting that relevant law says one must "knowingly and willfully" disclose "certain categories of classified information" to violate the statutes regarding the disclosure of classified information. Lempert explained that Clinton "would have had to know she was dealing with classified information, and either that she was disclosing it to people who could not be trusted to protect the interests of the United States." He also noted that heads of agencies, such as Secretary of State, "have considerable authority with respect to classified information," including declassifying material their agency has classified (emphasis original):

http://prospect.org/article/why-hillary-wont-be-indicted-and-shouldnt-be-objective-legal-analysis

News reports suggest that the FBI is nearing the end of its inquiry into the legal issues surrounding Hillary Clinton’s use of a personal server for government emails and into the legal ramifications of classified information found in messages to and from her. Most of the reporting—and virtually all political discussion—reads as if reporters and pundits know little about the rules regarding the classification of information and what they imply not just for the likelihood of a Clinton indictment but also for whether she violated other rules regarding the proper handling of classified information, whether or not the violations constitute crimes.

What follows reflects the knowledge and experience I have gained from working at the Department of Homeland Security from 2008 until 2011. While there, I took the lead in drafting a security classification manual for one of the divisions of the DHS science and technology directorate. In this discussion, I offer answers to questions about the former secretary of state’s email that have not been frequently asked, but should be.

SNIP
Add to Journal Self-delete Edit post Reply to this post

"The same is not necessarily true of those who sent her classified information. If it could be shown that they knowingly acquired information from classified sources and sent it unmarked to an unapproved server, their fate may be less kind than Clinton’s is likely to be."

I don't see how Clinton suckering her associates into committing crimes is an improvement.

Are literally going to subvert the will of the people and steal the election despite Hillary having won more pledged delegates and the popular vote? Typical. I don't want to hear any more bullshit about Bernie being the bastion of integrity. This tactic is just as slimy as it gets, he should be ashamed of himself.

and has been supporting down-ticket candidates. She is a life-long Democrat - not a Johnny-come-lately.

Why in the world would they change their support to Bernie? Makes no sense.

ears bleed? Hard to accept that everyone on the planet doesn't feel the Bern?

Got to keep those donations coming in.

It was a bad idea to sue the DNC after his folks infiltrated the Clinton data...doubt the super- delegates are feeling friendly to a guy who does not have the majority of pledged delegates and behaves this way... and who just yesterday attacked Democrats down ballot and Sen. Clinton with a campaign finance complaint. Then he sent a fund raising letter using it...I heard it was a last minute attack using a discredited Politico story.

sweepstakes. And I think my chances are a lot better than theirs.

NEVER.

It truly is a pathetic spectacle.

to go against the candidate with the most pledged delegates.