Questions I'd like answered from Hillary Supporters....

[ThinkCritically]

I'm not here to cause flaming or incite arguments but I would like to understand where Hillary supporters come from ideology-wise. All I'm going to do is list a couple of the biggest issues for me regarding Clinton's policies followed by a question:

1. I've heard her mention once or twice that she wants to overturn citizens united but she doesn't sound terribly concerned. Is that one of the top priorities for her supporters?

2. Hillary has mentioned her desire to take out Assad in Syria. As history shows, removing a dictator opens a vacuum in the region which could open up another avenue for ISIS. Do Hillary supporters agree or disagree with this policy?

3. Hillary Clinton is on the record supporting fracking, coal mining, and oil companies. To me, it doesn't seem like she is very serious about combating climate change. Is there something I am missing that her supporters know?

4. Hillary has stated that taking money from big financial companies isn't a sign that she will bend to their will. But we call out people like Ted Cruz whose wife worked for Goldman Sachs. Is it fair to blame one person but not another for the same issue? (I'm in no way a Ted Cruz supporter, just using him as an example).

5. Lastly, Hillary is currently under FBI investigation. It is real. There is a big perception issue regarding this investigation as if it's not happening. Are Hillary supporters worried that she may be indicted before or after November and do they consider the ramifications for choosing a presidential candidate who is under criminal investigation?

[RufusTFirefly]

1. Great questions. A wonderful tribute to your username.

By the way, I detest that phrase "take out." Like "enhanced interrogation" or "collateral damage", it insulates us from the sheer brutality of these acts.

[Gothmog]

2. Platform on Citizens United

Here is the Clinton platform on Citizens United and Campaign finance reform https://www.hillaryclinton.com/issues/campaign-finance-reform/

Hillary is calling for aggressive campaign finance reform to end the stranglehold that wealthy interests have over our political system and restore a government of, by, and for the people—not just the wealthy and well-connected. Her proposals will curb the outsized influence of big money in American politics, shine a light on secret spending, and institute real reforms to raise the voices of regular voters.

Hillary will:

Overturn Citizens United. Hillary will appoint Supreme Court justices who value the right to vote over the right of billionaires to buy elections. She’ll push for a constitutional amendment to overturn Citizens United in order to restore the role of everyday voters in elections.

End secret, unaccountable money in politics. Hillary will push for legislation to require outside groups to publicly disclose significant political spending. And until Congress acts, she'll sign an executive order requiring federal government contractors to do the same. Hillary will also promote an SEC rule requiring publicly traded companies to disclose political spending to shareholders.

Amplify the voices of everyday Americans. Hillary will establish a small-donor matching system for presidential and congressional elections to incentivize small donors to participate in elections, and encourage candidates to spend more time engaging a representative cross-section of voters.

[JudyM]

3. I genuinely wish you luck getting substantive responses. It would be a pleasure to have real

discussion on DU.

[LAS14]

11. Here, here.

[Gothmog]

4. Fracking

3. Hillary Clinton is on the record supporting fracking, coal mining, and oil companies. To me, it doesn't seem like she is very serious about combating climate change. Is there something I am missing that her supporters know?

The use of fracking in the US has greatly increased the US supply of natural gas which has reduced the need for coal. Natural gas is superior to coal.

[panader0]

6. Ack! a fracking supporter!

[Lizzie Poppet]

9. A rare sighting, to be sure!

Definitely one for the "life list." =P

[RufusTFirefly]

26. I'll drink to that!

(That's not beer. It's tap water.)

[Gothmog]

5. FBI investigation

5. Lastly, Hillary is currently under FBI investigation. It is real. There is a big perception issue regarding this investigation as if it's not happening. Are Hillary supporters worried that she may be indicted before or after November and do they consider the ramifications for choosing a presidential candidate who is under criminal investigation?

As a lawyer I have been following this issue for a while. There is very little chance of an indictment because there has been no proof that Clinton either violated the law or had the required mens rea or culpable mental state to violate the law. Intent is a key element here (do not pay attention to the threads posted by layperson on this issue). http://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-clinton-emails-legal-20150908-story.html

Hillary Rodham Clinton's use of a private email server while secretary of State may have been risky and politically unwise, but many experts in national security law predict it will not lead to criminal charges, based on what is known so far of her handling of classified government material.

That's because even a misdemeanor charge for mishandling classified information would require proof that Clinton knew she was keeping government secrets at "an unauthorized location."

Clinton has repeatedly said that she did not knowingly send or receive emails that were marked classified, and that her use of a personal email server — while not "the best choice" — was not illegal or unauthorized.

But these lawyers also caution that much remains unknown about Clinton's unusual email system and they say the Democratic front-runner remains vulnerable, both politically and legally, because of the ongoing FBI inquiry and a newly energized Republican-led House committee investigating the 2012 Benghazi attack that killed the U.S. ambassador to Libya and three others.

That investigation appeared to be going nowhere, but it gained new focus in late February when GOP staffers learned for the first time why they had received only a handful of State Department emails to or from the secretary of State. They had not been told until then that Clinton had not used the State Department's email server and instead relied exclusively on a personal system....

Stewart Baker, who served as top national security lawyer under Presidents Clinton and George W. Bush, said it does not appear based on what is known now that Hillary Clinton committed a crime when she used a private email server.

"It was a bad idea, a serious lapse in judgment, but that's not the same as saying it leads to criminal liability," he said. On the other hand, the continuing inquiries could turn up damaging evidence, he said, including the possibility that foreign governments tapped into her emails.

"This investigation has a way to go, and it will keep drip, drip, dripping away for a long time," he said.

The knowingly standard is not an easy standard to meet in this case.

Again the law is clear here despite some rather sad but really funny threads posted by some laypersons on this board.

[panader0]

7. She "chose" to ignore the rules. So it's not a "serious lapse in judgement".

It was purposely done.

[Gothmog]

14. Waiting for a Clinton indictment? Don’t hold your breath

No crime was committed and there will be no indictment http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/waiting-clinton-indictment-dont-hold-your-breath

The fact remains, however, that such a scenario is pretty far-fetched. Politico’s Josh Gerstein took a closer look today at the legal circumstances, and the reasons Clinton’s foes shouldn’t hold their breaths.

The examination, which included cases spanning the past two decades, found some with parallels to Clinton’s use of a private server for her emails, but – in nearly all instances that were prosecuted – aggravating circumstances that don’t appear to be present in Clinton’s case.

The relatively few cases that drew prosecution almost always involved a deliberate intent to violate classification rules as well as some add-on element: An FBI agent who took home highly sensitive agency records while having an affair with a Chinese agent; a Boeing engineer who brought home 2000 classified documents and whose travel to Israel raised suspicions; a National Security Agency official who removed boxes of classified documents and also lied on a job application form.

Politico’s examination seems to have only been able to find one person who sincerely believes Clinton will face prosecution: former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani (R), who was a prosecutor and a Justice Department official before his partisan antics made him something of a clownish joke.

Among more objective observers, the idea of Clinton facing an indictment seems, at best, implausible. This is very much in line with a recent American Prospect examination, which reached the same conclusion.

TPM’s Josh Marshall published a related piece in February, after speaking to a variety of law professors and former federal prosecutors about the Clinton story. “To a person,” Josh wrote, they agreed the idea of a Clinton indictment is “very far-fetched.”

[panader0]

16. I disagree that no crimes were committed--we'll have to wait and see.

I do agree that there will probably be no indictment. Which doesn't mean she is innocent. Lots of
guilty people escaped jail, even when indicted. But the cloud over her, the stain on her campaign, will
be very damaging. And citing Rachel Maddow--she is a Shillary to the max.

[Attorney in Texas]

25. Exactly. The fact that Obama's DoJ may not indict is not a demonstration that no crime has occurred.

[yallerdawg]

27. What?

[Attorney in Texas]

24. This spells doom in the 40 or so civil suits for Hillary's deliberate violation of the FOIA, but the

criminal investigation could still go either way.

[bvf]

8. "As a lawyer..."

Don't tell me. You're angling for a spot on the defense team, right?

[Gothmog]

13. No-but I may try for the rules committee at the DNC

[bvf]

18. Oooh...!

Well, you're certainly polishing that, uh, cred.

Oh, did I mention Oooh...! ?

Thanks for the chuckle. Nice of you to share, even as rich with them as you seem to be.

Oooh!

[Gothmog]

21. I am running to be a national delegate and I have been working with the Clinton campaign on issues

We will see what happens at the caucus elections.

It is more fun working on these issues in real life than discussing them on an internet board. Go attend a state convention and watch the process

[bvf]

33. I've been fairly active since working Dennis Kucinich's

first congressional campaign for what was then Ohio's 10th.

Last canvassed for Obama in 2012. Disability has put me on the sidelines since then, but the upcoming R convention is just a suburban stone's throw from here, and I hope to make one or more of the protests.

So cut the condescension, please.

[Gothmog]

34. Your posts amuse me given the rather sad but silly nature of your posts

Concerns about condescension are really amusing given the rather sad but silly nature of your posts

Good luck finding a place to stay in Philadelphia

[bvf]

37. Who said anything about Philadelphia?

Read my post again--this time more slowly--and put them fancy lawyerin' skills of yours to work.

I live in northeast Ohio. You should be able to figure out what the "R," as I used it, stands for, from context.

Yep, the DNC could really use your talents.

[panader0]

19. You'd better hurry before DWS is thrown out....

[Gothmog]

20. Texas gets 9 members to each of the Rules, Platform and Credentials permanent committees

These delegates are allocated based on the March 1 Texas primary which means that Clinton will get 6 slots each. Gary Mauro is the Clinton campaign designee in Texas and he will be making that selection. DWS has no say in this allocation process. The rules and platform developed by the Standing committees have to be approved by the applicable committee before being submitted to the floor.

[Attorney in Texas]

23. Any statement about "mens rea" is ill informed. You don't have access to the FBI's investigation so

you cannot say what the investigation has failed to turn up.

To the extent that some materials are publicly available, you may infer certain things that the FBI will uncover (I would not want to be in Sid Blumenthal's shoes), but without access to the entire investigation, you cannot infer much about what the FBI has not uncovered.

The better evidence of a non-indictment is that Obama has access to this information, and he is not acting as he would act if an indictment was imminent. That said, regardless of whether the DoJ indicts, the FBI recommendation will be a separate and comparably important issue. There is no telling what the FBI will recommend.

[Gothmog]

31. Hillary Clinton is going to be exonerated on the email controversy.

I find your post to be amusing and normally very very wrong. Here are some facts for you to ignore https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/plum-line/wp/2016/05/06/hillary-clinton-is-going-to-be-exonerated-on-the-email-controversy-it-wont-matter/

The latest news on the Hillary Clinton email controversy reinforces everything we’ve heard so far on this subject:

Prosecutors and FBI agents investigating Hillary Clinton’s use of a personal email server have so far found scant evidence that the leading Democratic presidential candidate intended to break classification rules, though they are still probing the case aggressively with an eye on interviewing Clinton herself, according to U.S. officials familiar with the matter.

FBI agents on the case have been joined by federal prosecutors from the same office that successfully prosecuted 9/11 conspirator Zacarias Moussaoui — and who would handle any Edward Snowden case, should he ever return to the country, according to the U.S. officials familiar with the matter. And in recent weeks, prosecutors from the U.S. Attorney’s Office in the Eastern District of Virginia and their FBI counterparts have been interviewing top Clinton aides as they seek to bring the case to a close.

That point about her intending to break classification rules is important, because in order to have broken the law, it isn’t enough for Clinton to have had classified information in a place where it was possible for it to be hacked. She would have had to intentionally given classified information to someone without authorization to have it, like David Petraeus did when he showed classified documents to his mistress (and then lied to the FBI about it, by the way). Despite the enormous manpower and time the Justice Department has devoted to this case, there has never been even a suggestion, let alone any evidence, that Clinton did any such thing.

So far no one has found evidence of intent.

[Attorney in Texas]

32. You say that you abhor the non-legal analysis of the issue. You should know there's no "exoneration"

There is "guilty" and "not guilty" but no blank for "innocent."

You quote the Washington Post: "Prosecutors and FBI agents investigating Hillary Clinton’s use of a personal email server have so far found scant evidence that the leading Democratic presidential candidate intended to break classification rules."

Do you know what "scant" means? It does not mean none; it means some.

Let's try this sentence: "Prosecutors and FBI agents investigating Hillary Clinton’s use of a personal email server have so far found some evidence that the leading Democratic presidential candidate intended to break classification rules."

No so rosy, is it?

Let's agree that the Obama administration DoJ is unlikely to prosecute regardless of the FBI recommendation. We should also agree that there will be no "exoneration" (in fact, the State Department report is more like a plea deal than anything else -- it seems like they are basically falling on their sword in the FOIA litigation in the hope of giving Hillary a defense in the criminal investigation), but I won't hold my breath.

[ThinkCritically]

36. Thank you for your thoughtful discussion. I however have to disagree (a little bit).

At this point, there is hardly any evidence against her regarding intentionally releasing classified information. However, the part I disagree with is that it's not necessarily about that. It is a factor but there is more to it. She may not have intentionally released classified information but she may have intentionally sent classified information through the server while knowing it could have been compromised. Her emails are available to the public and I remember hearing not too long ago (on Rawstory I believe) that one of the emails contained a conversation where they discussed sending sensitive information through her private email because the government equipment was down. I read it and it does seem that is what she is saying. If that is true, then she willingly risked sensitive information and knew the consequences of sending that type of information through an unsecured channel.

[LAS14]

10. Happy to engage in civil discourse.

1. I've heard her mention once or twice that she wants to overturn citizens united but she doesn't sound terribly concerned. Is that one of the top priorities for her supporters?

It certainly is for this one. But I want to wait to see what happens with SCOTUS before throwing energy into a particular strategy.

2. Hillary has mentioned her desire to take out Assad in Syria. As history shows, removing a dictator opens a vacuum in the region which could open up another avenue for ISIS. Do Hillary supporters agree or disagree with this policy?

I agree that a way forward can't involve Assad retaining power. Too much has been invested on the part of the Syrian people to abandon them to that agree. Even if it means some years of re-grouping afterward.

3. Hillary Clinton is on the record supporting fracking, coal mining, and oil companies. To me, it doesn't seem like she is very serious about combating climate change. Is there something I am missing that her supporters know?

I think she's very serious. Her problem is that she sees the complexities in such issues. That's hard to convey in sound bites. I trust her commitment. I'm also not one to say "no fracking ever," in case there are ways to mitigate the bad effects. I

4. Hillary has stated that taking money from big financial companies isn't a sign that she will bend to their will. But we call out people like Ted Cruz whose wife worked for Goldman Sachs. Is it fair to blame one person but not another for the same issue? (I'm in no way a Ted Cruz supporter, just using him as an example).

I don't call out Ted Cruz's wife for working for Goldman Sachs. It wouldn't cross my mind. I think it's not a good idea to paint with broad black and white brushes.

5. Lastly, Hillary is currently under FBI investigation. It is real. There is a big perception issue regarding this investigation as if it's not happening. Are Hillary supporters worried that she may be indicted before or after November and do they consider the ramifications for choosing a presidential candidate who is under criminal investigation?

I don't for a minute think that anything earth shaking is going to result. So she broke some rules (see State Dept report today), along with other Secs of State. So she's more private than is wise for a presidential candidate (which she was not at the time). Big deal.

[Buzz cook]

12. Thanks for numbering

That makes it much easier.

1. I've heard her mention once or twice that she wants to overturn citizens united but she doesn't sound terribly concerned. Is that one of the top priorities for her supporters?

Top what? ten? Twenty? If Obama gets to appoint a justice, that problem may take care of itself. But certainly getting big money out of elections needs to be addressed.

2. Hillary has mentioned her desire to take out Assad in Syria. As history shows, removing a dictator opens a vacuum in the region which could open up another avenue for ISIS. Do Hillary supporters agree or disagree with this policy?

The West "took out" several dictators with the fall of the USSR and the Warsaw pact. While each of those wasn't an unalloyed success, it did have a stabilizing influence till republicans started nation building in the former Soviet block.
Regime change doesn't have to mean military action. by the US or its allies.
Afghanistan both in the late 20th century and the early 21st century is an example of failure a you describe. Believe it or not there were plans in both cases to help Afghanistan back to a stable existence. In both cases those plans were ignored by the republicans in office.
We do have a recent example of regime change that left a relatively stable government. The Balkans after the Dayton accords followed by the liberation of Kosovo and the fall of Milosevic. Actually not a bad place now.
Oh and the reason for unrest in the Balkans? Reagan and some European powers forced the break up of the former Yugoslavia. Something the citizens pretty much were against.

So taking out Assad, it depends.

3. Hillary Clinton is on the record supporting fracking, coal mining, and oil companies. To me, it doesn't seem like she is very serious about combating climate change. Is there something I am missing that her supporters know?

Yes there is always something you (or anyone else) is missing.
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2016/apr/13/bernie-s/does-hillary-clinton-support-fracking/
https://www.hillaryclinton.com/briefing/factsheets/2016/04/13/hillary-clintons-plan-to-fight-for-environmental-and-climate-justice/
Clinton is a politician that does listen to people. She sees herself as a technocrat and as such is amenable to good arguments. On more than one occasion Clinton has challenged people who disagree with her to put their own solutions on the table.

4. Hillary has stated that taking money from big financial companies isn't a sign that she will bend to their will. But we call out people like Ted Cruz whose wife worked for Goldman Sachs. Is it fair to blame one person but not another for the same issue? (I'm in no way a Ted Cruz supporter, just using him as an example).

We judge actions. What are Cruz's actions toward the financial elite? How do those actions compare to Clinton's?
We also have the questionable manner in which Cruz received money through his wife as opposed to Clinton who even if you don't like her getting it, did get it openly.

5. Lastly, Hillary is currently under FBI investigation. It is real. There is a big perception issue regarding this investigation as if it's not happening. Are Hillary supporters worried that she may be indicted before or after November and do they consider the ramifications for choosing a presidential candidate who is under criminal investigation?

No I am not worried that she will be indicted. If you remember Bill Clinton had the Paula Jones case hanging over his head in 1992.
Just as Jones had no case because she never proved damages, aside from not getting flowers on secretaries day, I feel the same is true of the Email case. There is no there, there.

[Tarc]

15. Hmmm

1. Campaign finance issues have never interested me.

2. As Assad is butchering his own people by scores, I think his departure from the mortal coil is long overdue.

3. The two sides are not mutually exclusive; we need to be serious about climate change while acknowledging the realities of the economic effects of too much regulation.

4. The "big banks" issue has never interested me.

5. Emailgate is overblown fairy-clapping.

[arely staircase]

17. ok

1. Yes

2. Some agree. Others don't.

3. Probably.

4. It's called politics.

5. No.

[TwilightZone]

22. Well, you could learn something about Citizens United, for starters.

It's pretty clear that you have no idea what or who was behind it or what it was all about.

Otherwise, you'd realize that your first question is pretty ridiculous.

[CrowCityDem]

28. I'll answer:

1. You can't confuse volume with intent. Overturning that ruling will not be done through yelling. If she says she supports overturning it, that should settle the issue.

2. Without knowing the assessment of the after-effects, I can't comment. The result is wholly dependent on whether there is something ready to replace him. Removal, by itself, is not necessarily bad.

3. She obviously isn't a big coal fan, or else coal country wouldn't have had such a violent distaste for her in WV. Fracking is necessary for the time being, while we work on growing sustainable alternatives. We do not have enough 'clean' energy at the moment to satisfy our needs. Fracking may be a better option than burning more coal, or sending money to the Middle East for oil.

4. It is not the same issue. Cruz' wife was actually a part of the Wall Street culture we deride. Hillary gave speeches, while Heidi took part in the banking activities we want to crack down on.

5. No, I am not worried. While her email choices were not the best, they followed precedent, and weren't illegal. There won't be an indictment.

[JoePhilly]

29. + 1

[Thinkingabout]

30. On question 1, Sanders is talking about appointing judges to SC who would rule to overturn, the case

has to come up again in front of SC for them to rule, Hillary wants an amendment to prevent this from coming up again in the future, Sanders is only thinking about a possibility of the case returning to SC but this could change positions every few years, knock it out permanently, I go with permanently.

[ThinkCritically]

35. ^^^Thank you for all your responses^^^

I appreciate civil discussion! I will be reading these now that I'm home from work. Again, thanks for the responses. Even the snarky ones