One state already, Bernie won YUGE and they want to stick with Hillary and ignore the voters. You see? They are not adults, just corrupted players....in Bill Clinton's DLC wing party.

reflect on whether it is a good idea to nominate someone charged or about to be charged with a crime.

you'll have to be the adult and go there yourself

be prepared to overturn some lobbyist tables

to pick Bernie while he's under investigation by the FEC for illegal contributions?

Ah yes #Berniefreepass

that's their f***ing job.

But on a scale......hmmmm, FBI investigation, issues involving Nat'l Security, FOIA, vs issues involving FEC over campaign contributions( which average 27 bucks)....hmmm, find an anomaly there~ have at it Hoss. Somehow, I don't think it raises to the same level. But I;m watching that too, just in case.

But I don't even SEE the HRC people beginning to get up to speed on her issues.

Houston, we have a problem.

Bernie's felony isnt as bad as Hillary's supposed felony.
Do you think Snowden is a hero?

Its is Sanders supporters who need to cone to grips with his negatives.
All are forgiven, they dont even care, and that is cult like
I know Hillary's past and I know that 99% of all the supposed lies she's told all the scandals she's supposedly been involved in are bullshit.
I couldn't care less if she embellished on snipers in Bosnia

think sounds smart?

Because they have NOTHING in common. The FEC thing is just an accounting thing. . .some people gave more than they were supposed to and the, say $100 or so, over the limit will be refunded. Obama had to pay something like $380,000 fines for this.

Whereas, Hillary put the most sensitive top secret information onto her unprotected, non-government server. Some of those highest classification exposed people's lives to danger.

You think those things compare somehow? If so, I got no more reason to listen to what you have to say because that is stupid.

and it is a felony . He has ignored the FECs letters. oh yeah ...#freepassforBernie

" The FEC thing is just an accounting thing. . .some people gave more than they were supposed to and the, say $100 or so, over the limit will be refunded. Obama had to pay something like $380,000 fines for this."

Takes a huge set of cajones to say that while claiming to hate corrupt campaign financing

" In February, the Federal Election Commission sent the Sanders campaign two letters breaking down the campaign's possible illegal and foreign contributions. Both letters - one addressing the campaign's quarterly report for the quarter ending in December and another addressing the campaign's January report point out two overriding themes in Sanders' campaign finance trouble besides for the fact that they don't seem to be able to add (in both letters, FEC noted the Sanders' campaign's problem balancing the ledger): illegal over-contributions and donations from foreign addresses not properly accounted for to confirm their US citizenship."

You're fine with foreigners making campaign contributions and influencing Bernie's votes?



And he's ignoring the FEC.
" But as the deadline for the Sanders campaign to respond to its first FEC notice nears on March 17, that explanation is woefully inadequate. As more and more states vote, voters deserve to know, definitively, whether Bernie Sanders is accepting illegal campaign donations from foreign nationals, and just what is keeping them from implementing a technologically simple check on who's donating how much money.

Since October of 2015 to the end of January, the FEC counted a total of 665 potentially illegal foreign donations to the Sanders campaign, and hundreds of donors who have exceeded their contribution limits. The FEC noted more foreign contributions in just the month of January than in the previous three months combined, and has flagged over 3,500 contributions as over-limit. Through the end of December alone, the Sanders campaign had collected more than $23 million in donations without sourcing them or certifying that those came from donors whose aggregate total giving is below $200."

"Whereas, Hillary put the most sensitive top secret information onto her unprotected, non-government server. Some of those highest classification exposed people's lives to danger. "

What utter crap. Name the people in danger. The email labels were switched later to top secret..Powell even stated that they are warranted. Yes I know, you'll just willfully ignore that.
..and strange how Snowden's a big hero for putting lives in danger by just handing over millions of documents to reporters.

Kill all the lawyers! J-E-T-S Jets! Jets! Jets!

No, she's my daughter, wait, she's my sister. My daughter! My sister!

As Comey dives in and states, "The FBI doesn't do inquiries. This is the federal bureau of INVESTIGATION."



Once you get egg on your face, it is best to wash it off immediately. If it dries, it is a pain to rub off.

misdemeanor.

Who is going to GOTV for this type of candidate?

indictment talk is silly, not going to happen. (That's not me talking but the best you're going to get out of the pro Hillary crowd).

I'm not sure she's going to get charged (and if she is, I suspect a pardon or nice plea bargain ala Patreus) but I worry that half her entourage may be in trouble after yesterday. As best I can tell, that may have been a warning to the DNC that if you nominate someone under INVESTIGATION, it's you're problem.

Ignoring things - must be a pleasant planet some people exist on.

But this is planet earth. And we have problems.

Sometimes we can avoid them, sometimes we make them worse.

Usually, the smart thing: is not to ignore them.

You're stirring the mud. Flinging dung.

meh.

So, are you going to GOTV for a candidate that falls into the scenario I described?

:thumbdown:

It's like a mouldering corpse.

Smell it?

Birds of a feather.

Works for me.

Bro.

Two plans actually. Need one for before the nomination. Need one for after.

I think the SDs would abandon her. I don't think they would necessarily be enthusiastic about going to Bernie, but they really wouldn't have any other choice.

I'm not really certain what can be done once a candidate is already nominated, probably not much. Even if there were some things that could be done, different ballot access rules in all 50 States would make it a logistical nightmare.

I think the DNC is working on THAT right now. Sorry to say.

and I can't imagine Hillary going quietly into that good night...

Only one HRC supporter responded. They said they would continue to support HRC, even if she is charged. Can you imagine the fun Trump would have with that?

but I see most HRC supporters like to ignore unpleasant 'what if's'.

I think Trump would tweet 24/7 if that scenario came to pass.

Do you conspiracy theorists heave a yuge collective sigh of relief and support her, or do you all start a new theme about how you was robbed of your glorious indictment, and proceed to invent even more fantasies about a mass collusion throughout the US govt and complicity at the highest level.

That' the problem with these loopy confirmation bias scenarios, you keep searching for any scrap of information that you can manipulate to backup your preconceptions and expect everyone else to see your myopic interpretation as compelling evidence. Then you get riled up when people mock you and scorn your faulty logic... lather, rinse, repeat.

No theories here; I am not part of the investigation and unless someone is then it's all speculation right now. Nobody can say what is definitely going to happen. If nothing comes of the investigation, that's great.

But many HRC supporters seem to be convinced that nothing could possibly come of this. Isn't that a rather naive and reckless approach? And why is that so few will even answer the question, what if Clinton is charged?

Irrational thinking at best.

background check? How did the interview go? Did you get the job? What happened with the investigation?

Take off.

Only a conviction would be on the record.

Not that it matters. She's interviewing for the job of POTUS, not Office Manager at Jiff Lube.

Obama is clean. He's tried to run a clean administration. Hillary tried got devious and tried to go around the law. That's on her. If Obama pardons her, that's on him and wouldn't help his legacy or the party going forward.

and then blame us for the heat.

There is nothing she can do which will change their minds.

I know, another fantasy...

...for killing Vince Foster...

If you're going to create fiction, at least be creative.

FBI investigations are not fiction, and we "BernieBros" did not create them. And yes, investigations is plural, for there are two. Don't shoot the messengers.

Even if she doesn't get indicted, the scandal will either cost Dems the election...or Repubs will impeach her based on the FOIA lawsuit.

No way to win with Clinton.

Of course I wouldn't expect any of the partisan cynics around here to choose the obvious and likely response.

Someone under FBI investigation should not even be running, hate to say it.

will it make the local papers?

Hypothetically, when George W. Bush is indicted for war crimes, will his SCOTUS appointments be revoked?

Hypothetically, when the bros figure out that the FBI does not have the power to issue indictments, and when the bros figure out that the Department of Justice does not have the power to issue indictments, and that the grand jury of 24 Washington D.C. citizens does have the power to issue or refuse to issue indictments, will they stop embarrassing themselves with their questions that demonstrate that they do not know how criminal charging works? Answer is "no", they will not. Reality has no effect on them, just like Superman.

Hypothetically what if 24 Washington D.C. citizens issue indictment? What's the plan?

You do understand that no prosecutor has asked a grand jury for an indictment.

You may find my points pedantic, but really, if you don't care what the law is, why bother to educate you. If you want to engage in the fantasy that Hillary Clinton is going to be indicted, I'd suggest you get yourself a tube of lube and tune into Fox News so that you can have a circle jerk.

What "hypothetically" happens if Bernie Sanders explains plainly that he is a Trotskyite (which he is) and exactly what that is?

You know, John Anderson of 1980 Presidential fame is still alive. I was once as insane for his candidacy as you are for Bernie Sanders. My plan is to draft him, with Elizabeth Warren as the VP. If that doesn't work, I've got to do something that will utterly demoralize these Bernie nuts (a subset of Sanders supports) because it really is like letting the mentally ill homeless run the police department. The vast majority of the Sanders supporters seem okay. But the indictment obsessed, and the ones who can't do math seem generally un-fucking-hinged. More than Donald Trump (but less racist!) who seems to be just trolling everyone in the biggest troll in American history.

The question you ask is really not for me. I don't need a plan. I'm voting for the nominee.

I'm not, under any circumstances, going to vote for Sanders in November. If his people want to create a movement, they will need to get off this personality worship and create a party of candidates and activists and voters. At this point, it is based on one person. Our government isn't about one person. That is a feature of monarchies and dictatorships that we've agreed to do without here in the US and most Western countries.

an investigation is conducted ahead of any case. It is to determine the facts. After the facts are determined, an attorney may review the facts and decide whether she can win a case based on those facts to the standard of proof required. If the case is a criminal case, the prosecutor takes the case to a grand jury to see if the grand jury agrees that there is probable cause to believe a crime has been committed and that the evidence might support a conviction meeting the standard of proof "beyond a reasonable doubt and to a moral certainty." The accused is allowed to explain to the grand jury that the facts do no amount to a case.

Even a truly corrupt attorney like Kenneth Starr did not dare try to get an indictment against either Bill or Hillary Clinton on Whitewater or anything else.

Because all federal investigations are cases.

Pedantic.

pedantic, I know, but the bros want to change the rules at every turn.

Just ask Vice Presidential candidate Eagleburger.

an investigation. The Party establishment stuck to
her, because it wanted to make sure that the
status quo stayed alive and well.

I don't think that the party saw the strong attraction
on the other side with Trump. The game was played
without considering how upset people were/are with
exactly that status quo.

Now, after all this, what can they do? The FBI more or
less says it will take its time. They may be quacking
in their shoes, but still they will stick with their choice.

He lost to Clinton and has been a Democrat for less than a full year. I'd be fine with Biden or Warren, but absolutely wouldn't support it being Sanders.

Sorry.

I've decided no, I will not ask my neighbors to vote for someone under an FBI investigation.

but nobody outside of rightwing talk radio, Fox, and the Bernie Sanders campaign give a shit about that.

In 1971-2. And yes the comparison is increasingly appropriate. So the more proper question...will be, will you admit voting for her if she is impeached and indicted by the Senate? What people are trying to desperately point out is that this is not a good idea because of those reasons. Oh and FBI is not part of the VRWC.

But the impeachment is quite possible, with a senate trial. Read into the Nixon wipeout in 72.

Investigations take time.

to make the Hillary supporters realize that this FBI investigation is more than a "nothing burger".

What will it take to wake them up out of their stupor?