2016 Postmortem
Related: About this forumMessage auto-removed
JaneyVee
(19,877 posts)comradebillyboy
(10,947 posts)MADem
(135,425 posts)restorefreedom
(12,655 posts)JaneyVee
(19,877 posts)Of all people they choose Breitbart as their "intellectual".
restorefreedom
(12,655 posts)Response to JaneyVee (Reply #1)
Name removed Message auto-removed
MADem
(135,425 posts)LOL!
Response to MADem (Reply #20)
Name removed Message auto-removed
MADem
(135,425 posts)redstateblues
(10,565 posts)sufrommich
(22,871 posts)CoffeeCat
(24,411 posts)It's not just Republicans. Democrats are nervous about Clinton's email scandal and the fact that she has an FBI investigation hanging over her head during a hotly contested primary.
Wouldn't you agree that it is better to have this investigation wrapped up, as opposed to have it ongoing and clouding her campaign?
seaotter
(576 posts)InAbLuEsTaTe
(25,516 posts)Bernie & Elizabeth 2016!!!

MADem
(135,425 posts)She's not a target. That might disappoint some, but that term has very specific meaning.
If you're hoping for a frog march, you'd best go looking at the frog pond. You're not going to get the drama you seek.
Response to MADem (Reply #2)
Name removed Message auto-removed
JaneyVee
(19,877 posts)NWCorona
(8,541 posts)InAbLuEsTaTe
(25,516 posts)Bernie & Elizabeth 2016!!!

Response to JaneyVee (Reply #15)
Name removed Message auto-removed
MADem
(135,425 posts)Response to MADem (Reply #17)
Name removed Message auto-removed
leftynyc
(26,060 posts)that quotes a named government official saying that Hillary herself is the target of a criminal fbi investigation. Go ahead, we'll wait.
MADem
(135,425 posts)Sources familiar with the inquiry have told NPR Clinton is not a target of the FBI investigation, which may extend for months.
Response to MADem (Reply #33)
Name removed Message auto-removed
MADem
(135,425 posts)Response to MADem (Reply #41)
Name removed Message auto-removed
MADem
(135,425 posts)Clinton is not in trouble. Your OTHER LINKS prove that. The ones you didn't HAVE TO delete.
I think I will believe the FBI director before I'll believe some DU newcomer who has done nothing but post pot-stirring speculation without evidence, thanks anyway.
You have overplayed your hand and now you're becoming painfully obvious about it.
Response to MADem (Reply #47)
Name removed Message auto-removed
MADem
(135,425 posts)You didn't make a mistake--you posted that site because it backed up your comments.
Your other sources don't do that.
No "deflection." You posted a bogus thread, got caught, tried to hide it, and now you're doubling down.
Don't use rightwing sources and you won't call unwanted attention to yourself.
Response to MADem (Reply #55)
Name removed Message auto-removed
MADem
(135,425 posts)Your behavior here is questionable, at best.
BlueMTexpat
(15,664 posts)that Politifact has already debunked.
Repetition doesn't make it true.
Response to BlueMTexpat (Reply #46)
Name removed Message auto-removed
BlueMTexpat
(15,664 posts)Where on earth does THAT come from?
In re Clinton's emails, Politifact has it right. Sorry to disappoint you. As someone with experience as a lawyer at the DoS and very familiar with classification (I'm now retired), I can tell you that there is NO "there" there, no matter how much you hope that there will be.
You need to look outside your own little fact bubble of bias and move on.
BlueMTexpat
(15,664 posts)But along with Faux Noise, National Review, Breitbart and other RW sources, you continue to make things up out of whole cloth. Please read the link.
There is no "there" there. Wishing just won't make it so.
Response to BlueMTexpat (Reply #28)
Name removed Message auto-removed
MADem
(135,425 posts)Response to BlueMTexpat (Reply #28)
Name removed Message auto-removed
BlueMTexpat
(15,664 posts)HooptieWagon
(17,064 posts)...if it's going to happen. Which leads to a worst-case scenario of an indictment in the fall, before the GE. I don't know how the Democratic Party could recover from that.
LonePirate
(14,350 posts)I suspect most of them could care less about security violations. Rather, they simply want something to hurt Clinton politically.
JaneyVee
(19,877 posts)I think thats the expression.
Herman4747
(1,825 posts)NWCorona
(8,541 posts)BlueMTexpat
(15,664 posts)Corey_Baker08
(2,157 posts)All of the Sanders Supporters Who Are Hoping The Next President of the United States, Hillary Rodham Clinton Does In Fact Get Indicted (doubtful) Then Sanders Will House of Cards It & Step In To Replace Her As President...
Hillary Is A Smart Individual & I Wouldn't Be Surprised If She Didn't Ask Bernie Sanders To Be Her Vice President.
Over The Course Of The Past 4 Or More Elections The Democratic Nominee Has Chosen A Primary Opponent As Their Vice President. (Don't Know What The Hell Gore Was Thinking Picking LIEberman As His VP?)
Kip Humphrey
(4,753 posts)peacebird
(14,195 posts)If not the nominee, then Sanders should remain in the senate and hold her feet to the fire when she starts her inevitable hard right swing.
DesMoinesDem
(1,569 posts)I don't think the FBI will recommend prosecution that soon, but it will come before November. She will contine to run no matter what and in January we'll have President Trump.
leftynyc
(26,060 posts)A newbie predicting indictments for Hillary. Straight out of the sewers of right wing land. I COULD sprout wings and fly tomorrow but that's not going to happen either.
andrewv1
(168 posts)in front of the Justice Department stopping any movement in that direction!
I think I would rather be a newbie than be naive.
PonyUp
(1,680 posts)Lint Head
(15,064 posts)rbrnmw
(7,160 posts)
Response to rbrnmw (Reply #38)
Name removed Message auto-removed
rbrnmw
(7,160 posts)MADem
(135,425 posts)It just creates a (quite possibly false) characterization of his supporters.
I truly don't know anyone, personally, who supports Bernie Sanders and who voted for him yesterday who would EVER -- not in a zillion years -- use FREE BEACON as a source.
The fact that he used it as proof, and then tried to hide it, when his other sources don't say what that ugly Free Beacon source said, is telling.
This guy is not helping the Sanders campaign at all.
rbrnmw
(7,160 posts)they never post positive things about Bernie
MADem
(135,425 posts)I have friends and acquaintances (and even a relative or two) who are Sanders supporters, and NEVER--I mean NEVER NEVER NEVER--have I heard the kinds of ugly "justifications" for his candidacy, or references to right-wing websites or viewpoints in support of Sanders, that I have heard here.
I really have to wonder what is going on--is this a divide-and-conquer effort? An "enemy of my enemy" ploy? It doesn't sound like a lot of people who post these links even LIKE Democrats, liberals, progressives, or anyone who wants to improve the lot in life of everyday, ordinary people. For this reason, I look askance at the depth or sincerity of some of these posts that use these ugly sources.
giftedgirl77
(4,713 posts)MineralMan
(150,888 posts)msanthrope
(37,549 posts)redstateblues
(10,565 posts)a losing candidate. It's Bernie's only path to the nomination
lumberjack_jeff
(33,224 posts)A guy is walking past the outhouse just in time to notice a guy dropping a $50 bill down the hole.
"What are you doing?" He passer-by asks.
"If you think I'm going down there for a $1 pair of sunglasses, you're crazy."
No, they continue on. They're fully committed at this point to nominating Clinton no matter what it takes and no matter what it does to the party or to the country.
MADem
(135,425 posts)She's not a target of any investigation. FBI made that clear months ago.
Anyone who is trying to tell you she is a target is doing that to drag her down, not to bring Bernie Sanders up. They want you to be distracted, to "pile on," to waste time hoping against hope that some magic, nonexistent indictment will clear the path for Sanders, when it's not going to happen. If he wins the nomination, he's going to have to do it by earning it, not by having the FBI kneecap the front-runner. But see, if he doesn't win it, they want you to have an idea in your head that her not being a target isn't true, so you'll vote for Trump out of a sense of anger or revenge.
Consider the source.
GeorgeGist
(25,570 posts)FBI doesn't recommend indictments.

