And they will accept that?

Some of us are more equal than others.

Are you obscenely wealthy? The answer to that question is the answer to your question.

People with money can do pretty much anything.

. . How can THEY be rooting for her? Someone who gets away with everything THEY can't and SHE would prosecute them to the full extent of the law.

I just wonder how many people supporting Clinton have any idea what Bernie's life-long struggle, and especially this campaign, is really about.

People are stuck on the first female president. They're not looking any further. I understand that the average person doesn't really pay too much attention. But one assumes that people on DU are familiar with the issues and the candidates. So why do so many support Clinton? I have no idea.

sure...we told you it was right wing bull shit but you are so desperate for Bernie to win and it is his only path....

I GET A VOTE! As do millions upon millions of Californians!

Secondly, there IS "something there," or the FBI would not have spent a year investigating it, and as is blatantly obvious if you are literate on this investigation--i.e., have reviewed the parts of it that are in the public venue. Clinton broke a number of laws. That is plainly true. And she very likely put national security in danger, by using an insecure, private server in her house, and put a U.S. agent's life in danger (by mentioning the name), among other things. What we don't know is WHY she took these risks with national security and with her own reputation. It looks utterly stupid and incompetent on the face of it. But the reasons she did it, which may lurk in those tens of thousands of emails, and in revelations about the Clinton Foundation (in the public venue) likely spell even more trouble for her, whether internal (distrust of her by the intelligence community and others) or external (corruption items usable by Trump and by the RW morons in Congress). Further, the attempt at a coverup ("wiping" the server but failing to do so) was both incompetent and a violation of yet another set of laws, including obstruction.

Whether she will be held accountable for all this is another question. There could well be "nothing there" as to accountability for the rich and powerful. There wasn't anything "there" for Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld, for example. However, she is not "there" yet in the seat of power where issues of accountability are decided. So, it's true that we just don't know what will happen with this. And I would much rather it be settled by Bernie winning big in California, than by Clinton being hauled before a grand jury in the middle of a campaign against Trump. Jesus Magillicutty, the Clinton's create the goddamnedest messes!

I WANT OUT OF THIS! I don't want this to go on for four years! And it is going to, no matter what the FBI does. Clinton is so compromised and so dirty that we're going to have four years of Articles of Impeachment, starting the day after she's inaugurated, if she ever gets there. PLEASE GOD--and California!--GIVES US A CLEAN CANDIDATE!

Oh, right, we HAVE one!

If the FBI clears Hillary the Berners will simply move the goalposts. There is no threshold that could be met that would satisfy them.

You could say you are busy. There is no requirement that you cooperate with them. If you are willing to cooperate I'm sure they'd be willing to schedule an interview at your convenience.

Please answer this question: if you knew there was serious reason to believe the Democratic front-runner had violated her security clearance and federal felony statutes, and if you were a ranking Democrat, would you wait until the very end to formulate contingency planning and a succession plan? Let's assume Comey finds she violated her Classified Information Nondisclosure Agreement, but leaves it to the Justice Department whether or not to indict. Would you let her continue her run under those circumstances?

Right wing fantasy doesn't appeal to me.

We will find out soon who has been living out a fantasy.

but not exonerated. The grown ups in the Party won't let her run under that cloud. It would be suicidal politically.

It could happen, but it would not be a legitimate finding, considering the evidence as we have seen it to be.

Which means there will be rebellion in the FBI ranks, and likely leaks, and -- as the Intel pros say -- the possibility of domestic or foreign blackmail and compromise will be a matter of national security.

to quit.

Last edited Tue May 24, 2016, 05:41 PM - Edit history (1)

But the actual timing could prove interesting. California votes on June 7 and not getting the debate they were looking forward to could raise questions about there being a connection.

Edit: I corrected the date of the primary election in California.

The indexing at wikipedia made my hasty glance an incorrect one.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democratic_Party_presidential_primaries,_2016#Schedule_and_results

I wonder who that points to as the target?

batten down the hatches.

If you lie, toast.

This article even spelled that out: "The FBI's standard practice is to save questioning the person at the center of an investigation for last, once it has gathered available facts from others."

All I see in the media are assumptions, no facts.

It made her do it.

Must be... Jeff Weaver!

interview Hillary, I'm thinking it's already happened.

She sent Bill here yesterday.

so the exact crimes she committed (if any) need to be taken into consideration, and she will probably cut some kind of deal.

I am not a lawyer or a member of law enforcement, but destroying/altering government records, failure to comply with FOIA and not turning Blumenthal in when he was sharing leaked classified information from the NSA and CIA were enough to piss me off, and that was before my IT professional hat went on....

Reading is fundamental.

drop out I would break into a happy dance.

Revolutions are messy affairs.

CIA Director John Deutch - CIA IG recommended felony prosecution under Sec 793 of the Espionage Act, AG declined, pardoned.
Nat'l Security Advisor Sandy Berger - Pled down to misdemeanor records destruction after stealing and destroying classified sections of the 9/11 investigation from the National Archives.
CIA Director David Petraeus - Pled down to Sec. 1924 after being charged with Sec. 793.

The spin, the spin is upon us.

...and that alone will be enough to cost us the election if she is our nominee. If not, then she will be impeached, which will cost us in the midterm elections, even if she survives.

The GOP are salivating to run against her under these circumstances. One way or the other, she'll be pardoned, like CIA Director John Deutch.

FBI's the only organization that knows what this investigation is about and where the investigation is going.

Ida's headline really highlights how speculative the reporting and op-eds are:

"FBI 'May' Question Her". That boils down to this:

"So they may question HRC, they may not, they may already have, we don't really know, so all we can do speculate about it because the FBI aren't leaking."

Thanks for the reply and have a great night. Sounds like we'll know pretty soon now.

On her server hundreds of which she sent herself along with Top Secret materials from other agencies. She violated her security agreement.

Hmmm...

He wasn't a spy or leaker, was he?

Classified information with someone she knew did not have a clearance (Blumenthal). She even encouraged him to "keep it coming".

Little to no difference with what Patraeus did.

mistress. She didn't have the clearance to read them. That's why Petraeus was treated differently than Clinton.

He didn't have clearance.

Determine what happens to Hillary

"appears unlikely that..."?

Her "legal experts" always make the same canned statement soft-peddaling this, and have always been wrong. It isn't hard to find a "legal expert" to say damn near anything.

It's called "spin". And the anonymous way it's stated is a tip-off.

Save your " "...


I find nothing remotely humorous about you, your posts and and your cohorts. You and them have earned my eternal enmity. If I expressed the depths of it and elaborated on it my post would be hidden.

Have a day.

"I welcome their hatred".

Have a day.

Hillary is indicted I leave DU forever. Hillary isn't indicted you leave DU forever.


" "

The email server is, of course, an egregious flouting of U.S. national security, FOIA, and the administration for which she was ostensibly working, but the shady activities and people centered around the Clinton Foundation frighten the heck out of me. It is that, more than anything -- more, even, then her complete lack of ethics -- that makes the prospect of her in the presidency a "must not happen" scenario.

But perhaps the email investigation will enable a deeper probe into the Foundation.

Question her or don't, and let us know whether she's going to be indicted/remain under investigation before we nominate her. If the FBI finds she didn't do anything wrong, great. We can go ahead and nominate her, assuming she ends up with more votes after the last primary, without having to worry about an investigation or indictment derailing her campaign. And if she is in trouble, release that before the convention. To do anything else is inappropriately interfering in the election, IMO.

Out of curiosity, is there a protocol in place to replace a nominee who dies, becomes incapacitated, or is forced to resign after being nominated? I can't think of an instance in modern history when this has happened (Robert Kennedy had not yet been formally nominated when he was shot). What is the procedure to nominate a replacement?

If the nominee were to die before the election, the Democratic Party's charter and bylaws state that responsibility for filling that vacancy would fall to the Democratic National Committee, but the rules do not specify how exactly the DNC would go about doing that. (Congress could also pass a special statute and push back Election Day, giving the dead candidate's party time to regroup.)

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/explainer/2008/09/dead_by_election_day.html