Sanders: Federal report on Clinton emails requires 'a hard look'
This discussion thread was locked as off-topic by BooScout (a host of the Latest Breaking News forum).
Source: Fox News
Democratic presidential candidate Sen. Bernie Sanders said Sunday that American voters, superdelegates and others must “take a hard look” at the recent federal report that found primary rival Hillary Clinton’s email setup while running the State Department broke agency rules.
“It was not a good report for Secretary Clinton. That is something that the American people, Democrats and delegates are going to have to take a hard look at," Sanders told CBS' "Face the Nation," during one of two TV network interviews Sunday.
* * *
And he made clear presumptive GOP presidential nominee Donald Trump has and will continue to make an issue of them if and when he faces Clinton directly in the November election.
“Donald Trump and other Republicans will seize on it,” he told NBC. “There’s no doubting that.”
Read more: http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/sanders-federal-report-on-clinton-emails-requires-a-hard-look/ar-BBtCmMK?ocid=iehp
As the California primary date approaches, I expect Bernie to start hitting Hillary hard on Benghazi, Vince Foster, and her husband's infidelity not because he necessarily is saying that it is relevant to the needs of middle and working class families, but because “Donald Trump and other Republicans will seize on it.” “There’s no doubting that.”
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
liberal N proud
(61,195 posts)He is no Democrat!
Democrats don't try to destroy other Democrats.
LS_Editor
(920 posts)
TomCADem
(17,837 posts)Unlike Bernie, Hillary could not just blow up the Democratic party behind her in 2008 by claiming it was corrupt, rigged, etc. At the time, Hillary knew there was chance that President Obama would not win, but she could not be seen as the reason why he lost. She might need the party in 2012. So, Hillary vigorously supported Obama in 2008 at the end.
Bernie has no such limitations. This is his last rodeo. If he does not win, there is no downside for him to bring down the whole building around him, or just stay on the sidelines during the general election. He is not going to be running for President again, so he needs to go all-in. He will not have a chance to run for President again, and that is the most important thing.
LS_Editor
(920 posts)And we'll see what happens between now and the end of the convention.
ImaPolitico
(150 posts)Who the hell trys to destroy one's opponent like lying Sanders does. Sanders never was a Democrat in the first place. I believe he will join forces with Trump sooner or later. They are both two peas in the same pod who both declined to serve their country during time of war yet they both want to become president of the USA. Are they for real.
askeptic
(478 posts)Maybe he can be burned as a witch!
liberal N proud
(61,195 posts)TipTok
(2,474 posts)Whooda thunk?
HillareeeHillaraah
(685 posts)He went from "nobody wants to hear about your damn emails" to Americans need to take a "hard look".
That's not a demonstration of one's ethics.
That's an act of a desperate campaign. That's an act a man who seems rather fond of the screaming crowds chanting his name and can't wrap his head around the idea that it's soon to be over and done.
He may have many decent qualities, "ethical" is not one he's demonstrated throughout his campaign.
raindaddy
(1,370 posts)Did Sanders make her decision to use a home brew server? It wasn't Sanders who told her to lie to the public claiming her system was approved..Or assuring us her system was never hacked, when she really has no clue. She's acting like she has something to hide and that's 100% on her...
If Sanders was in the same position with a continuous FBI investigation, his IT guy given immunity Hillary, the Dem party establishment would be all over it until he dropped out of the race....
If you think Bernie's statement was an attack, wait until Trump and the Republicans get a hold of it.
liberal N proud
(61,195 posts)
agincourt
(1,996 posts)really should have been taken a year ago, at least six months. Smells to me like another registered republican FBI director doing what republicans do well, get other republicans elected. She hasn't worked for the state dept since 2012, this thing should have been wrapped up by now.
jmowreader
(53,220 posts)The scorched-earth thing he is now doing is beyond the pale.
TomCADem
(17,837 posts)This is why Bernie is doing Democrats a favor by destroying, tearing down Hillary. Between Bernie, Trump, and independent groups, they they can render Hillary unelectable. Thus, the party will have to rally around him as the only alternative.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/carbonatedtv/a-bernie-win-in-californi_b_10155072.html
For someone who has been losing ground to Trump in many recent polls, it’s become obvious that she needs Sanders voters who are simply not coming on board.
According to analysis by the New York Times, “The most recent wave of national surveys shows Mrs. Clinton winning just 55 to 72 percent of Mr. Sanders’s supporters. She’s faring far worse among young and liberal voters than one would expect.”
If Clinton cannot gain the support of all the Democrats, along with a moderate number of Independents for the general election, she will fare very poorly against Trump.
A Sanders win in California would truly unearth the weaknesses that lie in Clinton’s candidacy; she has difficulty with crucial blocs of Democratic-leaning voters, and that should be a troubling reality for Clinton-backers.
Zorro
(18,704 posts)That is an absolutely fucked up attitude.
TomCADem
(17,837 posts)Bernie explained, "all that I am saying is for those superdelegates who came onboard before I was even in the race, you have got the very grave responsibility to make sure that Trump does not become elected president of the United States.” “Vote for the strongest candidate.”
http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slatest/2016/05/29/chuck_todd_asks_bernie_sanders_if_he_is_being_hypocritical_on_superdelegates.html
The host of NBC’s Meet the Press did not mince words when Bernie Sanders was a guest on his show today, directly saying that it sounded like his strategy to win over superdelegates was a bit “hypocritical.” Chuck Todd made the comment after Sanders said he saw “three paths to victory” that would allow him to become the Democratic Party nominee for president. As far as Sanders is concerned this would be the three-pronged strategy that would allow him to beat Hillary Clinton:
1. Get to the convention with more pledged delegates than Clinton, which he recognized would be “an uphill fight.”
2. Talk to the superdelegates who represent states where Sanders won a landslide victory to push them to follow their state’s voters.
3. The “most important point” is talk to the “over 400” superdelegates who threw their support to Clinton “eight months before the first ballot was cast.”
ImaPolitico
(150 posts)jmowreader
(53,220 posts)Bernie is winning sparsely-populated counties. Hillary is winning densely-populated ones.
News flash: New York City, which Hillary won, has more people in it than most of the states Bernie won.
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)
bucolic_frolic
(55,220 posts)He think obviously that the party could unite behind him
But he has no leverage with the party apparatus, no real following
in Congressional Democrats
It's sounding like a magical moment that's never going to happen
and he is now beheading the likely nominee
yet says Trump must not be elected
Bernie needs to think this through
jalan48
(14,914 posts)They see her as a conservative Wall Street Democrat who does not represent their views. I'm sure his amazing rise from zero to dead even without the help of corporate money is not being lost on the Democratic establishment.
TomCADem
(17,837 posts)If the primary was purely a question of Democrats choosing, then Hillary would be farther ahead. This is why Bernie should win California. While Hillary will probably win the majority of Democratic votes, Bernie can rely on independents, undeclareds and anyone else to put him over the top.
jalan48
(14,914 posts)She doesn't need my vote, a Democrat since 1972.
TomCADem
(17,837 posts)...rather his pitch is that he can also draw independents. That is why he has been able to keep it close despite Hillary win a clear majority of Democratic votes. For example, in California, Bernie can draw on the 24 percent who are undeclared to overcome Hillary's advantage among Democrats.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/12512084427
cstanleytech
(28,484 posts)so if Bernie cannot win the Democratic nomination where does he go from there?
Does he bow out gracefully and admit defeat or does he pull a Ralph Nader?
jalan48
(14,914 posts)You raise a good point however, it should be obvious to the Democratic establishment that the Party is currently split between conservative and a progressive Democrats.
ImaPolitico
(150 posts)Sanders is craving some things he cannot do.
Zorro
(18,704 posts)miamipilot
(82 posts)If you believe that Hillary Clinton should become president because she is a woman or simply because it’s her turn since she has been a public servant for so long… I encourage you to take a little time and watch this video. I will eat my hat if it doesn’t change your mind. I am of the belief (as old fashion as it may be) that every candidate should be selected based upon the fact that they have a better position on issues and can demonstrate some level of integrity.
TomCADem
(17,837 posts)Politico makes the same point you raise. Many of Bernie's backers are not really supporting him based on his proposals or his ideology, but because they are anti-establishment. If Bernie falls out of the race, then they have no where to go but to Trump. Bernie's support is based on his personality and his combativeness, rather than his actual proposals as noted in this article.
http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2016/05/why-bernies-bros-might-go-for-trump-213915
For all their divergent beliefs, Donald Trump and Bernie Sanders have each tapped into raw anger and resentment that is in some ways more emotive than ideological. The dangers for Hillary Clinton are clear. By most reasonable standards, she is as unimpeachably liberal as Humphrey was in 1968, yet she is equally distrusted by the anti-establishment left. She will need to guard against defections to an anti-establishment conservative who has proved every bit as deft as Wallace
And, like Carter in 1980, Clinton will enter the fall campaign with sky-high disapproval ratings, in no small part because her primary opponent spent a year casting her as an enemy of the common man. True, Trump is also wildly unpopular. But people tend to forget that Reagan was hardly more trusted when he unseated Carter than Trump is today—and that year, voters chose the candidate who represented a break with the status quo.
Citing survey data from earlier this year, political scientists Christopher Achen and Larry Bartels recently observed that “supporters of Mr. Sanders were more pessimistic than Mrs. Clinton’s supporters … and more likely to say that economic inequality had increased. However, they were less likely than Mrs. Clinton’s supporters to favor concrete policies that Mr. Sanders has offered as remedies for these ills, including a higher minimum wage, increasing government spending on health care and an expansion of government services financed by higher taxes.” Achen and Bartels attribute Sanders’ appeal to identity politics, particularly given his disproportionate traction with “disaffected white men.” In this respect, the Sanders electorate is not dissimilar from a large portion of McCarthy’s and Kennedy’s supporters.
* * *
The historical lesson for Hillary Clinton is clear: Watch the left flank, because it could very well swing to the right.
ImaPolitico
(150 posts)out there in this election cycle.
Hillary has all the qualifications the others do not have.
Stevepol
(4,234 posts)Here's the tag:
As the California primary date approaches, I expect Bernie to start hitting Hillary hard on Benghazi, Vince Foster, and her husband's infidelity not because he necessarily is saying that it is relevant to the needs of middle and working class families, but because “Donald Trump and other Republicans will seize on it.” “There’s no doubting that.”
Bernie from the beginning has said nothing about the emails and the emails are way more relevant than Banghazi or Vince Foster or Bill's infidelities. What Bernie said was that Trump and Republicans would seize on the emails issue, "there's no doubting that." As usual, Bernie is just telling the truth. He doesn't give a damn about the other non-issues and has never even believed in the other issues as issues. He even left the emails alone when he could have used them from the beginning.
Why get so damned paranoid? Hillary is most likely to win the nomination. If she does, like a large percentage of Bernie supporters, I will vote for her. Whether she will defeat Trump, I sincerely don't know. I hope and pray that she will, but to be honest, she's the perfect opponent for Trump, who is totally unqualified for the job and during the campaign will only be interested in talking about the many non-issues that are out there for him to talk about. He's only interested in calling his opponents names and besmirching their integrity.
TomCADem
(17,837 posts)While he may have dismissed it early on when he was focusing on bringing attention to the issues, now, as Bernie points out, "Donald Trump and other Republicans will seize on it,” he told NBC. “There’s no doubting that.”
All politicians flip flop.
jalan48
(14,914 posts)TomCADem
(17,837 posts)I am just trying to understand Bernie, because he is this pristine paragon of righteousness. He says that e-mails are off-limits, then he says that they deserve a hard look. He complains about superdelegates, but then talks about how he is going to make a pitch to superdelegates in States that Hillary has won to ignore the popular vote. Now, if you tell me that he is just being flexible, pragmatic, and adjusting to changing circumstances, then I can respect that.
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/nbc-host-sanders-hypocritical-superdelegates
"We're going to make the case for the superdelegates, "Your job is to make sure that Trump is defeated, that Bernie Sanders, in fact, for a variety of reasons, not just polling, is the strongest candidate.'"
Todd told Sanders he was contradicting himself.
"You're saying you want them to respect the vote in their state, then at the same time, you say, 'But oh, by the way, for those of you that are a superdelegate in a state that Clinton won, why don't you think about the general election?' It's a little bit hypocritical to be on both sides of those issues," Todd said.
"No, no, no, that's not what I'm saying," Sanders responded, arguing that the superdelegates have a "grave responsibility" to make sure presumptive GOP nominee Donald Trump doesn't become president.
jalan48
(14,914 posts)Is this true or is this simply a fictitious right wing smear? If so, wouldn't it make sense to say it needs a hard look? If the FBI determines there is nothing there then Hillary can say the issue was given a "hard look" and move on. You seem to be saying that there is either no investigation ongoing or that the FBI (Obama Administration) is conducting some type of witch hunt. As a Democrat I would say let's deal with this issue ASAP and then move on.
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)jalan48
(14,914 posts)
sadoldgirl
(3,431 posts)are purely fabricated.
He said that he was sick and tired of her e-mails as
a part of the debate; However he also stated at the
time that there was a legal process looking into the
whole issue, which he wanted to see played out.
Now that the SD has come out with heavy criticism
of HRC's actions, he says that this has to be considered
as a serious issue.
IOW, he waited for the outcome before he made any
comments. I doubt that the Dumpster will use it, but
the media have done so already and, indeed,a lot in
the repug party will.
Do you claim they won't??That would be pure fantasy!
Response to sadoldgirl (Reply #26)
TM99 This message was self-deleted by its author.
onehandle
(51,122 posts)beastie boy
(13,283 posts)What gives, Bernie?
840high
(17,196 posts)you do it?
jalan48
(14,914 posts)beastie boy
(13,283 posts)Until today.
What gives, Bernie?
840high
(17,196 posts)Jester Messiah
(4,711 posts)If Clinton wins the nomination, you think Trump's just gonna ignore this whole issue? Wake the fuck up already.
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)Fortunately 15 days from now her enemies won't be allowed to do it here.
Sunlei
(22,651 posts)
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)So glad I voted against him.
jaysunb
(11,856 posts)NanceGreggs
(27,835 posts)... than a loser still trying to cling to his fifteen minutes of fame?
The bank packed up two hours ago, Bernie, and the wait staff want to lock up.
It's time to go home. No one is listening anymore.
still_one
(98,883 posts)pretty pathetic
NanceGreggs
(27,835 posts)... there are a LOT of pathetic moments to look back on when it comes to Bernie's campaign.
JNelson6563
(28,151 posts)More and more the word "tool" has been coming to mind lately...
Julie--feeling less neutral in primary these days
snort
(2,334 posts)Whata mutt.
davidpdx
(22,000 posts)He will bring up the email reports, but not the other stuff. Sanders gains nothing by bringing those things up. He is pointing out that Trump is going to hit her with it (and we know that he will)
LiberalElite
(14,691 posts)on Benghazi and Vince Foster and infidelity - that's all right wing Repug crap - and he's correct that Trump and the Repugs will hammer her with it as well as what is an actual serious problem - putting our national security at risk by using an unsecured server in her home, for her "convenience."