They, like me, want the truth out ASAP.

There's no shame in this.

Sorry, but that kind of behavior is vindictive and reflective of a general meanness.

"General meanness"

It starts with an "h" and ends with a "y" and rhymes with aristocracy.

...without any call for justice.

let's this crappola stand.

to spend time with her husband in a happy retirements from public life, and enjoy her child and grandchildren.

If they can't wrest the nomination from Trump, maybe it will.

I doubt the nomination could go to Sanders, but honestly, I'd accept almost anybody other than Clinton.

On Mon Apr 25, 2016, 10:06 PM an alert was sent on the following post:

Exactly.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1251&pid=1834112

REASON FOR ALERT

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

ALERTER'S COMMENTS

This=Trump. "I'd accept almost anybody other than Clinton. They do not belong on DU. Hide it!

You served on a randomly-selected Jury of DU members which reviewed this post. The review was completed at Mon Apr 25, 2016, 10:18 PM, and the Jury voted 2-5 to LEAVE IT.

Juror #1 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: You're ignoring the first part of that sentence - I doubt the nomination could go to Sanders.

Who picks the Democrat nominee? The DNC. He doubts that the DNC would nominate Sanders, even if circumstances forced them to pick someone other then Clinton.

Considering the articles and some members here talking about the chance that the RNC would tell Trump to piss off and nominate Romney, despite him not actually campaigning, it is possiable that the DNC might decide to nominate someone likewise - That is, put up someone who didn't primary.

So, taking into account the first part of the sentence, he's saying that he'd accept pretty much anyone else that the DNC would put up for a nominee.

So, I really don't see how Trump is involved in this - Unless, of course, you are trying to say that the DNC might try getting Trump to run under them should he actually go through on his threats to break away from the Republicans and try a independent run.
Juror #2 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: Oh BS! The primaries are still happening! Geez... relax!!!! Stupid alert!
Juror #3 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #4 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: Let this stand so everyone can see who and what this poster really is.
Juror #5 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #6 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #7 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: First, this is in reply to a post that suggests: "I hope Democrats do get the chance to nominate a better candidate." So replying with, "I'd accept almost anybody other than Clinton," doesn't automatically mean Trump. Doesn't even SOUND like it, really.

Second, poster is not advocating against the Democratic nominee, since there is no Democratic nominee yet.

But anyway, sure hope the poster votes anyway. We're gonna need every one.

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

>>Dnt worry join @Berniesanders n support HRC come nov. Vote HRC now or worry even more


What the hell does this mean?

If she wasn't so fatally flawed we would be behind her 100%. Most Bernie supporters know he isn't perfect. He's pretty much the opposite of what we would think the perfect candidate to be. I think Martin O'Malley looked the part much more than Bernie. And he has a kinder gentler persona. Or if you really wanted to have a female president then Kamala Harris would be a much better choice than Hillary. She is more accomplished and she doesn't have 100's of feds chasing after her. And she looks very presidential whatever that means.

Just not Hillary. Even if she wins the general, Dems will be slaughtered in the midterms.

I have no idea why I like Bernie better as a Presidential candidate to this day it's a mystery. But, I do it might be because he doesn't look like a typical politician. But, OTOH Kamala Harris does look politician like and I think I would like her as much as Bernie if I got to know her. So, again it's a mystery. I think some people just have a certain kind of charm and they are just likable that way.

O'Malley doesn't. But he's a pretty damned good compromise between Hillary and Sanders.

That's probably what did his campaign in at the time though.

O'Malley has that establishment aura, it's not a bad thing from him though. It just hurts his credibility a little bit with me. I can't 100% trust him. I do trust him to not be Hillary and this year it would have been enough for me to support him to the end. It was not to be and it wasn't a loss for me. I am more for Bernie than #NeverHillary. But, without Bernie I am still #NeverHillary.

which makes me sad because on paper i like his policies but he refuses to say he was wrong about the "broken windows" crap

the first responsibility of the pres is to defend the Constitution, any candidate that openly disrespects it is not getting my vote

David Simon, former Baltimore Sun reporter and the creator of The Wire, is very familiar with O'Malley's work in Baltimore and trashes him. That's good enough for me.

http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slatest/2015/10/13/democratic_debate_2016_david_simon_s_devastating_assessment_of_martin_o.html

I am amused by the Sanders supporters and republicans praying for an indictment http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/waiting-clinton-indictment-dont-hold-your-breath

Clunton's water.

Just review the details of the case and you'll see why she is fatally flawed.

If the Democratic Convention nominates her anyway, we deserve to lose in November. In the end, Obama will pardon her, regardless.

This is a very bad thing for America, no matter how this plays out in the end, the political and legal processes will suffer a terrible blow to their legitimacy if she isn't indicted. All pretense of equality under the law is going to be blown if she's nominated.

For some Hillary is always thought of as the victim. Most independents, 60% of the vote, know better. I'm not sure that once the battle really starts with the Republicans she can win. Running a candidate who pretends to be a liberal progressive is suicide for the party.

She will become a "New Democrat" NeoLiberal (READ: Conservative) so fast it will give many people whiplash.

Else not at all.
But don't look for any Supreme Court conformatios during the sure impeachment.

I openly admit I am hoping for Clinton's indictment or a transcript leak.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/12511834002

REASON FOR ALERT

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

ALERTER'S COMMENTS

This kind of "wishful thinking" does not belong on a Democratic site.

You served on a randomly-selected Jury of DU members which reviewed this post. The review was completed at Mon Apr 25, 2016, 10:45 PM, and the Jury voted 2-5 to LEAVE IT.

Juror #1 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #2 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #3 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #4 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #5 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: This kind of outright attempts at censorship does not belong on a progressive website.
Juror #6 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #7 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
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.

But if I can't express my political thoughts openly, then what is the point of posting here?

Thanks for posting the results though. I do wish they would automatically be sent to the OP.

be indicted, is something I would not alert and didnt but it is something all members here should either admit they go along with or dont.

And if they do go along with this thinking, then Democratic Underground or ANY liberal message board is not a place for you, never was.

If you openly advocate for someone like Cruz or Drumpf to be president, and that is what you are doing, then you cant ever be called a liberal or a progressive, not ever.

heartily admit I go along with it. I also admit I am not now, nor have I ever been, a registered Democrat, though I have always voted for Democratic candidates. I am a Bleeding Heart Liberal and have the right to be on any liberal message board unless they specify you MUST be a registered Democrat or unless I violate the TOS of said board. I feel wanting a better candidate than Hillary is not against TOS. If the Powers That Be here disagree, I welcome the PPR.

Why are they not responsive to the need of the people to not have to face a crisis because an indictment is handed down during an election. This is wrong. The people have a right to know. But with Her, EVERYTHING has got to be a secret.

I think that has a lot to do with it. He's going to wait for when it can have the most impact.

a good guy, I am starting to agree with you.

But the Director of the ACLU's Washington Legislative office, Laura Murphy, cautions that "Comey...also approved or defended some of the worst abuses of the Bush administration during his time as deputy attorney general. Those included torture, warrantless wiretapping, and indefinite detention."

I first noticed MSNBC's lack of coverage of Tuesday's hearings when preparing for my Wednesday interview with former FBI Special Agent Coleen Rowley, who served 24 years in the bureau and was lauded for her whistleblowing efforts there after 9/11 as TIME's 2002 Person of the Year.

http://bradblog.com/?p=10123#more-10123

Political considerations should play no part in active criminal investigations, frustrating though that can be sometimes.

Pathetic and despicable OP.

paternity leave, tuition free public college, and so much more is more despicable than Henry Kissinger? Your post is despicable, not Bernie.

this election.

money in politics, same systemic racism etc etc etc...

He's been in government 35 years, what has he accomplished in any of those areas? He is a worn out politician looking for a good closing act.

Hillary. She is corrupt and represents everything most of us are against.
Hillary's lies and million $ trolls have guaranteed her loss.

That's got to count for something

it's difficult to predict what the future might hold. There are millions of angry people and some that have just given up on the future of the US. It's sad and pathetic. 2016 will be a major turning point, but the polarization will continue and likely get even worse IMO.

Two SOS chatting.

What does the pic have to do with the OP?

The Indictment Fairy isn't real, dear. Put the milk and cookies back in the fridge.

I see someone beat me to the punch.. most pathetic alert ever. (Well, at least this week... )

Do you hear yourself?

Should something like that happen now it would cause irreparable damage to the Democrats. It wouldn't matter one whit who you put up, there's no way we win dog catcher come November.

The entire party would be destroyed for the election. You have to know that.

I don't think you could resurrect FDR and run him & win after something like that. You might as well hand this election and possibly the next to the pukes.

Hillary losing is one thing, hoping for this type of scandal would be so damaging to the party as a whole.

However, it needs to be resolved asap.

Unfortunately FBI chief Comey is a Republican. While its rumoured he's a straight shooter I find these delays very troubling.

The indictment, whatever, I completely entrust that to the FBI, and will accept their findings.

But the chance of the transcripts not being leaked? Close to zero in my book. We already know there is at least one journalist out there with a copy. What is Mika's friend waiting for?

I think it's rather pathetic that Bernie's "Future to Believe In!" comes down to believing that his opponent will be indicted, or a "transcript leak" will bring her down.

I guess it's all gone the way of "Once people hear Bernie's message, they'll all rally to his side" - which, as we now all know, didn't work out very well either.

It was her own fault!

Transcripts will destroy her.

And BTW, just where do you think the transcripts are going to magically appear from?

I'm just wondering who the potential "someone" is - or could possibly be.

There was only one copy of the transcript produced, which was given to Hillary as per her instructions - probably in electronic form, directly from the court reporter SHE insisted be there.

So with all the "someone has those transcripts" speculation going around (or, more to the point, being desperately clung to), I'm curious as to who you think that "someone" could be.

That honestly doesn't make you feel at all uncomfortable?

I don't want to see some repuke fuckwipe get in because of it

more R, and then real conservative SCOTUS appointees and this country will be in a horrific state of affairs. I will vote for HRC before I will let this happen.

There would absolutely be zero chance that a Democrat would win the general election under those circumstances. Maybe it would give Sanders the nomination by default, but it would harm Democrats as a whole. Be careful about wishing for bad things to happen.

If he couldn't win the primary and ended up the nominee as a technicality because a top Democrat got indicted there would be no win.

They literally cannot see more than 5 feet in front of them.

It's going to be an awesome, issue-driven GE. Important issues like Clinton's indictment vs. corrupt Dems shielding her from indictment, with a Goldman Sachs cherry on top.

You know, substantial issues that will drive voters in droves to support Dems.

Hillary has not released any delegates. Furthermore, this is the same talking point I have heard from RWers.

I wonder if a potential first lady has ever been indicted? Jane still has her dealings at Burlington College hanging. Maybe bank fraud.

very soon. The Democrats' worst nightmare would be for an indictment to come down after the convention. It's not likely to happen, but it should be settled now.

Hillary's supporters make much of the fact that she has weathered many scandals, and indeed she has been adept at dodging bullets (metaphorically), but my question is what is it about her that arouses such distrust in the first place. If it really is just a right-wing conspiracy, why is it so easy to believe?

to God/Goddess's ears.

You make a good case.

... but, if she is going to be indicted, I hope it's done at a point where Bernie will no longer be seen as a viable choice and they give it to O'Malley.

O, salad days!

O, Michigan!

That which is best for the party is that which is best for the country. A better nominee.

I'm not hoping for an indictment, and from what little I know I think it's very unlikely to happen.

BUT -- suppose for the sake of the argument that Hillary is nominated and then, after the convention, is indeed indicted. Does anyone know what the rules are about the ticket? Two scenarios:
1) She voluntarily steps down. Who picks her replacement as the nominee?
2) She refuses to step down. Is there any mechanism for overriding the convention vote based on subsequent events?

I'll hazard a wild guess, based on no research whatsoever, that the answers are (1) DNC and (2) No. Just to complicate matters, it's also possible that the answers vary from state to state, because states control their own ballots for federal office.

You believe that she's corrupt so you're hoping that it's true and she gets an indictment to validate this thing that you already believe on faith because the republicans told you to.

Because she didn't build a coalition of diverse voters the way President Obama did in 2008.

The fact that she is corrupt and dishonest will keep her out of the White House.
Whether she goes to court in the future, or not, will have zero impact on the General Election.

Because Bernie is the better candidate.

Because it sure sounds like it

I used to not know what to think about the FBI probe, but lately I've been thinking otherwise, especially vie H.A. Goodman's arguments for this (" target="_blank">link). Hopefully this indictment happens prior to the Democratic convention July 28, and I hope the FBI has this on the front burner for the sake not just of the democrats but the whole country.

then the chances of it all coming down in the GE will increase, not decrease.

If it has to happen, let it happen now.

I can't wait until the TOS bans take effect.

The stupid burns.

Since you see so far into the future .
Thanks.

Hillary is not more dishonest or corrupt than any other candidate, but she's been put under the lens since the 1990s as the Republicans have attempted to take her down, and then the Bernie supporters did the same. Whatever Bernie supporters don't like about the Obama foreign policy they pin on her; whatever they do like they do not pin on her. They have distorted badly her record on women's rights, gay rights, and civil rights. They have turned the email story into a scandal, when what she did was legal, and after combing through 50,000 emails, it appears there's not all that much there, at worst a few minor slips. Pretty incredible for a corrupt and dishonest person, huh? They have taken her choice to profit off speech making as an act of corruption, when it was no more than opportunistic. They have isolated individual votes of hers to define her as a neocon and war hawk, ignoring some votes by Bernie that could be exploited the same way (such as his support to toppled Saddam in 1999 and for war appropriations in 2001, his support for the stealth bomber, and his support for the Kosovo war). So, all I can conclude is that you have either been reading too much stuff telling you what to think, or deep down what you really want is a male president again.

When we've tortured, when this administration failed to hold anyone accountable, when Guantanamo stayed open, when we've continued with drone campaigns that have generated new splinter terrorist organizations..until the electorate dramatically changes course, we will continue to install criminals into the White House and it's administration. I don't know how anyone could be enthusiastic about that.

We even have a self-proclaimed journalist who posts their hopes for an indictment. It's becoming a common theme from the Paul side of Sanders supporters. Fox News is hoping right along with you.

As an actual progressive, I don't support anyone getting the book thrown at him/her over trumped up, bullshit charges. We already know that past sos have done the same thing. Time to move on.

in her basement which meant she controlled all access to her emails! In addition, the server did not have the necessary encryption at all times. She didn't even turn over all of her work-related emails until years after she left the State Dept. meaning no one at the State Dept. had her emails and could not respond to FOIA requests that were coming in. Then there is the whole issue of sending/receiving classified info. She worked for us--not the other way around and was obviously more concerned about convenience and keeping her personal emails away from prying eyes than making sure she followed the rules concerning work email.

snip

So that leaves Powell, a regular email user, as Clinton’s only predecessor who serves as a useful comparison. When we reached out to the Clinton campaign, they pointed us to Powell.

Like Clinton, Powell used a personal email address. However, there’s a big difference: Clinton hosted her email on a private server located in her home. Powell did not.

Rice and Powell must be prosecuted ...to use Gmail or some such thing for emails...many of them now classified...is criminal. At least Hillary used a server designed with serious security which it appears was not hacked although, the government server was hacked repeatedly.

..and appear to be using some retread talking points that no one accepts.

Smh.