If the FBI recommends indictment on any charge, will Hillary people agree she needs to withdraw?

[IdaBriggs]

Or are we going to have to dance through "innocent until proven guilty" and "those blasted right wingers set her up" or "really, it isn't that bad because Republicans" and such?

I realize the goal post for holding her accountable for EPIC BAD DECISIONS keeps moving, but since the Office of Inspector General is now saying what a bunch of us have been saying (translation: "OMG - she did WHAT? That's VERY BAD!!!&quot I am wondering if we are all still apparently members of the "Vast Right Wing Conspiracy to Hurt the Clintons" now or we are allowed to be actually freaked out Democrats yet.

Seriously, at what point do her supporters realize we are not making this up and this is "Nixon Level Possible Jail Time Bad"?

Sigh.

[lagomorph777]

1. No, they will be fine with her running a campaign from her jail cell.

As long as the party coronation can take place, who cares about the GE?

[Time for change]

72. I really believe that they'd rather Trump win than have Bernie get the nomination

I think they're afraid that if Bernie gets the nomination he will move the party left, and that would make them very uncomfortable because then they'd be faced with the decision of having to change their whole mode of operating or risk losing their privileged positions.

[PufPuf23]

78. I agree that many supposed Democrats would rather have Trump be POTUS than Sanders.

The Clinton supporters accuse Sanders supporters of supporting Trump over Clinton which is ludicrous.

Many of the folks that support Hillary Clinton as a continuation of Reagan Bush I Bill Clinton Bush II and to a lesser extent POTUS Obama would rather see Trump than Sanders (but aren't about to admit this in public).

Hillary Clinton likely favors Trump over Sanders to maintain status quo.

[Baobab]

155. Definitely - which is disturbing

[B Calm]

83. Sure looks that way! At this point, just

supporting Hillary is hoping for a Trump win.

[Arneoker]

114. If Bernie were indicted for anything, would you agree that he should withdraw from the contest?

If any Bernie supporter answers that then I will answer the question of the OP.

Hillary is no more likely to be indicted over this than Colin Powell is. The chance is zero.

I think that the Right Wing in this country is intellectually bankrupt, and that that is shown by their obsessions with allegations of dirt and scandal. It is not a good sign that seems to be true of a lot of so-called progressives. I would like to think that they are better than that, including those who I might have some big disagreements with.

[lagomorph777]

116. There are major differences between Powell's case and Clinton's

Powell placed the server in his office and had tacit approval of IT, as a demonstration of using e-mail throughout the department.
Clinton hid the server in her basement and used it secretly without IT approval. She hid the attacks that it was hit with.

But to answer your question, yes, in the astronomically unlikely event that Bernie was indicted for some hypothetical transgression, yes of course he should withdraw.

[Time for change]

125. I think that the Democratic Party is on the verge of moral bankruptcy

Not as bad as the Republicans, but it is shown by their dependence on money from powerful interests groups and, perhaps more than anything else the Democratic primaries this year -- the massive voter purging, abuse of power at the NV state convention and then false claims of violence by Bernie delegates.

To answer your question: If Bernie were indicted for a felony, unless I believed that it was a frame-up by the Democratic Party, then yes, he should withdraw.

It is looking at this time that Hillary will be a very weak candidate in this election, and she will be fighting off serious felony charges. No, she won't be indicted by the time of the convention, but it is looking very bad for her. She already has negative favorability ratings of -19%. With every new revelation it will plummet even more. It is unheard of that someone with such high negative favorability ratings would even run for President, let alone win.

She should withdraw now, before incalculable damage is done and we end up with a President Trump. But I doubt that she will. I think that her hunger for power is too great to let her do that. If the Democratic Party really doesn't want a President Trump, they should ease her out.

[Different Drummer]

154. I definitely agree with the below.

She should withdraw now, before incalculable damage is done and we end up with a President Trump. But I doubt that she will. I think that her hunger for power is too great to let her do that. If the Democratic Party really doesn't want a President Trump, they should ease her out.

[JonLeibowitz]

128. Yes, if Bernie were indicted he should withdraw.

[IdaBriggs]

132. Yes. If Bernie is indicted on criminal charges, he should withdraw.

People who are the subject of criminal prosecutions do not belong in the Oval Office. The old saying "Caesar's wife must be above reproach" is 100% appropriate.

[Carni]

137. If he is/was indicted for something so blatantly stupid and or arrogant

Then YES, he should remove himself from the race.

Seems like that is kind of an irrelevant question however, since he is the candidate who is NOT under FBI investigation by a justice Dept run by Democrats.

[Matt_R]

150. Bookmarking for response.

So I see 4 Sanders supporters answering. You may proceed.

[highprincipleswork]

152. Even before indictment. FBI investigation would be enough to convince me he should withdraw.

Otherwise it's just too risky for the Democratic Party.

I also think that he would. Anyone with a good faith concern for our prospects in November should.

[Chan790]

75. ...and...

that they're politically tone-deaf enough to compare her to Mandela and Bobby Sands in the midst of that jail-house run.

[Scootaloo]

76. I was gonna suggest Eugene Debs, but yeah, they'd go full-bore Mandela on that

[okieinpain]

79. lol, you're bad. n/t.

[glinda]

139. good one

[AgingAmerican]

2. Cognitive dissonance won't allow them to do that

They will bridge the gap between what they want, and what they see by escalating the poop flinging, IMHO.

[dchill]

53. Possibly. I don't get that level of denial, myself.

I myself was able to get over my support of John Edwards in about 2 minutes. When does the dam break?

[tonyt53]

3. Dream on. Desperation is really showing with Bernie-ites.

Also, if they charge HRC, they will have to charge Colin Powell and Rice. They also used private email for government business. In other words, dream on. Then you toss in Watergate, which has no level of comparison with the email stuff.

[TeddyR]

9. The FBI isn't investigating Powell or Rice

And Powell or Rice aren't running for president. The question is whether you'll continue to support Hillary if she's indicted, not whether you think she will be indicted. I'll vote for her in November unless she's indicted.

[Arneoker]

115. But you all are raising the IG report

The IG report matters or it doesn't. If it matters for Hillary then it matters for Powell and Rice. You don't avoid getting indicted if you don't run for President.

So which is it? Does this report matter or not?

[TeddyR]

123. So are you calling for Powell and Rice to be indicted

Along with Hillary? The simple fact is the report found that Hillary violated State Department rules. And Hillary is being investigated by the FBI for those same violations. Because of Hillary's blatant disregard for the rules we may be facing 4 years of President Donald Trump, and Hillary's supporters on this website continue to excuse her lack of judgment (and potentially criminal acts).

[IdaBriggs]

134. Read the report. The scope is not even the same.

You can link to it here: https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/2842460/ESP-16-03-Final.pdf

The difference is someone not counting their change versus the person who grabs the cash register and dumps it in their purse.

[IdaBriggs]

11. With respect, Powell and Rice did not have private servers EVER.

Nor have they been under investigation by the FBI for almost a year. The FBI gets to choose who they go after, and at the moment, that appears to be Hillary.

And the Watergate comparison is extremely apt on multiple levels, but if you are not aware of the particulars, you will be confused.

You might want to visit this website http://www.thompsontimeline.com/The_Clinton_Email_Scandal_Timeline to get up to speed on the actual issues she is facing. I can only assure you it looks bad, but you are free to be confused by deliberately staying uninformed.

[lagomorph777]

140. Watergate was just a political dirty trick; the email server risked national security.

So Hillary's case is vastly more serious.

[JudyM]

19. Try reading the report. The rules were looser when they were in office. They broke no rules.

Clinton did, however.

[inchhigh]

31. Everyone made some mistakes. She made A LOT of them

Rice's name appears in the report 13 times.

Kerry 14 times.

Powell 17 times.


Clinton 125 times.

[dchill]

55. It's not desperation. It's righteous indignation.

How many times, on how many different subjects, can you say "she did nothing wrong" without listening to YOURSELF?

[Peachhead22]

73. They don't have to charge everybody

Also, if they charge HRC, they will have to charge Colin Powell and Rice. They also used private email for government business. In other words, dream on. Then you toss in Watergate, which has no level of comparison with the email stuff.

The next time a cop pulls you over for speeding and starts writing you a ticket make sure you say "What the hell?! You didn't pull over anyone else on the highway and write them a ticket? Those other people were clearly speeding too" and see how fast he tears up your ticket. Hint: Don't hold your breath.

Besides, whether or not she's criminally charged is not the entire point. Even if she isn't charged. She's tainted, she's got a ton of baggage and this adds a ton more. We don't need the 'Pubs saying the only reason our nominee isn't in jail was because she got off on a technicality.

[jamwich]

105. Sorry but no

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2016/mar/09/hillary-clinton/hillary-clinton-said-my-predecessors-did-same-thin/

"Like Clinton, Powell used a personal email address. However, there’s a big difference: Clinton hosted her email on a private server located in her home. Powell did not.

Many politicians use private addresses, but private servers like the one Clinton used are rarely seen..."

[ljm2002]

118. Weak...

...while Powell and Rice did use private email for government business occasionally, they did not use private email exclusively -- nor did either of them run it all through their own private server.

Clinton's actions are different in degree, and in kind. She has claimed that her use of the private email server was okayed by government attorneys -- that is now known to be FALSE. She never asked anyone for permission, she just did it.

State Dept. policies concerning the use of email had also been updated between the tenures of Powell and Rice, vs. Clinton. So no matter how you slice it, Clinton is more culpable than either of the two you mention.

I don't know if the FBI will recommend indictment, or if she would actually be charged in that case. I do know that what she did was both careless and irresponsible. Her server was not properly secured; and when the server was in the hands of private entities, it was possible that several people with no security clearances at all could see all of her emails. Which is already nearly as bad as having her emails hacked. If it turns out that her emails were hacked, the sh*t will really hit the fan and she will be very damaged by it.

[Kelvin Mace]

4. They can NEVER admit they are wrong, Never.

They will deny it all the way to Trump's inauguration.

[Scuba]

74. And then they'll blame the left.

[TeddyR]

5. As someone who prefers Bernie

I've said multiple times that I will vote for Hills if she is the nominee, as will my wife, even though we were wondering last night how the Dems ended up with such a tainted candidate. That being said, I will NOT vote for Hills if she is indicted and refuses to drop out. Since I'll never in a million years vote for Trump I imagine I would write in Biden.

[arikara]

29. Just curious...

Why you would write in Biden if you prefer Bernie?

[TeddyR]

33. Because I prefer Biden to either Bernie or Hillary

And was hoping he'd decide to run. I like Bernie compared to Hillary, but I'm not a hardcore Bernie supporter as some are and would have preferred Biden or Warren. In hindsight, I think the person who should have run is Warren.

[SoCalMusicLover]

38. No Way Warren Was Going To Run

That would have meant opposing Hillary for the opportunity at 1st Female President, which the party NEVER would have allowed.

After all, it's Hillary's turn, and hers alone.

[IdaBriggs]

64. I like Bernie, but I also like Biden, Warren and a few others.

I think Biden made the right decision for his family after he lost his son -- it was just too soon.

I think Bernie has worked for it, and part of me will always wonder if his not being beholden to the party was something that maybe had Obama giving him some subtle encouragement. But this pure speculation....

[arikara]

70. OK

that's fair.

[KingFlorez]

6. If there is an indictment, no Democrat or "Democrat" will be elected President

I don't think most people cheering for Clinton to be indicted realize that it would be bad for Democrats overall.

[ChisolmTrailDem]

30. And whose fault would that be, if it were to happen? And whose judgement led us to today? nt

[Scootaloo]

77. Ralph Nader's, I'm sure n/t

[TeddyR]

36. To be clear

I'm not "cheering" for Hillary to be indicted. I think she's a very tainted candidate with a ton of baggage and her unfavorables are appalling. However, I don't want her indicted but am concerned she will be. And even if she isn't, the State Department report is pretty damning for a candidate who already has trust issues. I do NOT want Trump to be president.

[Peace Patriot]

112. Well, I disagree with that. People don't associate Bernie Sanders with...

...Clinton corruption or with Democratic Party leadership incompetence. They know he's "independent" of all that, however they may frame it to themselves in their own minds. New face, no corporate money, small donor campaign, talks about real peoples' issues, kind of crumpled-looking and real-looking not your typical airbrushed, manicured TV mannequin. Etc. And best of all, NOT a Clinton.

No, I don't think a Clinton indictment would taint Bernie at all. And the opposite may happen--undecideds may conclude that he was right all along about Clinton, and isn't it great that he's there and I can vote for him, and not for a Clinton and not for Trump.

And I have thought about this, KingFlorez. I was thinking about it just yesterday: What would happen to my party--50+ year Democrat here--if Clinton is indicted?

It could hurt the down-ticket races, especially Dem incumbents running who have strong ties to Clinton. But there again, Bernie Sanders may save that situation as well. He's very popular. His trustworhty and likability ratings are very high, and he demolishes Trump in poll after poll after poll. I think he's likely to have very good "coat-tails."

And this is particularly true if he handles it well. And there's every sign that he would. He's been a gentleman throughout this campaign, and has NOT gone after Clinton in the vicious personal ways that Trump has done, or in ways that were straightforward--like the very criticizable email server--but that he felt would be wrong or a bad focus. I think he would strongly support any Democrat who supported him. In fact, I'm sure of it. And he would be far, FAR better at healing the party split than Clinton would be. In fact, she shows no skill at all at the healing arts, while Sanders, from his time as mayor all through his career in the House and Senate, has shown great skill at getting along with others with very different views.

I think it may turn out that our party is very blessed to have a candidate who has stood apart from the Democratic Party establishment but has chosen to be a Democrat and would like to reform the party. I think that's what most people would like to see--a "big tent" party again, a New Deal party, a "good government" party--that fights against all the corruption in Washington and in state houses that most people in this country see as the problem. With that message, and his energetic message-carrying for the party and its other candidates, he could create a blow-out win across the board, and flip over Congress and many state houses. He has that appeal.

Clinton does not. And it is unique to Sanders. Biden doesn't have it either. He's an old Dem pol. Nobody's going to flock to him as a reformer. Warren could possibly have it, but she has not run in this race and a whole lot of people don't even know who she is. Sanders is unique, and we may have unique circumstances before us, wherein close association with the party (and a Clinton indictment) can't beat Trump, and can lose a lot of down-ticket races, whereas Sanders' distance from the party is the very asset that we need to beat Trump and win other races.

[SheenaR]

7. Do not expect many answers

Expect to be attacked for asking a completely reasonable question. My guess is RW loon or quit having sour grapes about Sanders. I am not sure which you will see more.

[JudyM]

21. Or sexist.

[SheenaR]

25. Damn you JudyM

You got me on that one lol Cannot forget the #1 go-to

[JudyM]

39. Yeah, someone needs to do a spoof song or poem about it.

It could start with the sound of the waaaaambulance.

[aspirant]

8. Recommends indictment,

right under the bus goes the FBI.

It's really an irrelevant department and our austerity cuts should rid us this nuisance forever.

[grasswire]

10. Here's what I wonder.

Skinner has posted of a tough crackdown on our "BS" after the voting is finished.

Does that mean the purge will happen June 15? Prior to the convention?

Even if it's a contested convention?

And what will he do to DU if HRC steps aside?

[IdaBriggs]

24. I trust Skinner and the owners of this site to do their best for all of us.

They have ethics and values (support DEMOCRATS), and also are reasonable people.

I have not always been happy with some of their decisions - at least one poster is someone I feel was unfairly banned - but they have provided me a "safe place" during some very difficult times, especially during the Bush years. This site is also responsible for my having figured out how to lower infant mortality and the causes of some (83%) of cerebral palsy "misdiagnosis". How can I be anything other than sad if they decide, for the sake of their principles, that I should be banned because of this divisive primary?

I know I have irked them with my passionate support and posting my truths about Hillary (which are deemed to be "right wing attacks" by many of her supporters). I still trust them to do the right thing by this site.

I have suggested they copy/split the site, or they may just decide to cut their losses and purge the passionate. The taunts from the Hillary supporters have been painful, but have allowed me to personally grieve.

These are challenging times. Everyone is doing their best. I can only say that I trust them, even if I don't expect to be happy with being one of the purged.

[Maedhros]

41. Supporting Democrats does not equate to "having ethics and values." [n/t]

[Amaril]

148. It has become quite disturbing

I saw two posts by Hillary supporters just today stating that they can't WAIT for the purge to begin, and there are others who have openly admitted that they are gathering "lists" (screen shots of the DUers who have DU rec'd posts they consider not in support of Hillary) to be used in the coming purge.

How is ugly stuff like this allowed to go on?

[JudyM]

48. If Clinton doesn't get the pledged votes she needs prior to the convention I trust they'll wait.

Saw a post from Skinner about this somewhere but can't recall the specifics. I give him a lot of credit for trying because it has been. Trying. Not just for us.

[Samantha]

104. Was there any change from the policy of past election years?

Last edited Thu May 26, 2016, 03:52 AM - Edit history (1)

I didn't see the post. And I did not think there would be a wholesale purge. Hopefully, you will fill me in.

Sam

[grasswire]

111. here --- post from Skinner

http://www.democraticunderground.com/125910453#post1

[lumberjack_jeff]

131. "I have no interest..."

"I have no interest in providing a platform for people to act like a Trump presidency isn't such a big deal."

That would be discussionist.

[lumberjack_jeff]

130. DU is also a business.

Don't look for any purge.

[Attorney in Texas]

12. If Dorothy throws a bucket of water on Hillary, the Hillary people will support the pile of goo and

the pointy hat that remains.

The Hillary people are supporting her for reasons that cannot be swayed by what you or I would find persuasive.

[NWCorona]

13. I'll just leave this here

[JudyM]

26. As of today we can see that she was either outright lying in this clip or truly ignorant of both

facts and rules that actually did apply to her, that she broke. Powell broke no rules. Powell didn't conduct all his business on a private server.

[NWCorona]

27. And Powell along with every other SoS operated with this audit except for Hillary.

[KoKo]

35. ....!

[dana_b]

52. Exactly. She knew better and just

B.s.ed through that entire question. It looks very likely that she WILL be indicted. Then what, Ms. Clinton?

[nolabels]

126. As for grades on diplomacy and seeming to answer the questions sincerely......

Just watch the clip a couple times, it's easy to tell

[Jester Messiah]

14. I'm not sure what she could possibly do to lose them at this point.

Well, maybe if the checks stop clearing...

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

15. The perception of wrongdoing is often as damaging is the reality of wrongdoing.

Nixon was never indicted, tried, or convicted of any crime. He even said, "I'm not a crook".

Did Hillary commit any crimes? I don't know. But, the perception is that she did something wrong because the FBI is investigating her.

[phleshdef]

17. Thats my worry as well. It doesn't matter if the accusations are fair or not if public perception...

...is against her.

[JudyM]

32. While not a criminal investigation, the IG report declares that she in fact broke rules, and that

she did this knowingly & intentionally. These findings of fact will likely weigh into the FBI investigation as well. A department's conclusion that its own rules were broken will, in general, be given significant deference by a court. Add to that the findings based on factual evidence that she was informed about the rules and went to some length to both break the rules and to stifle discussion about it. That knowledge and intentional consideration about how to proceed etc will likely be relevant to any questions of "what she knew" and "her intent" in subverting records laws, at a minimum, in the FBI investigation. Could be prima facie evidence of intent.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

43. As happened with Nixon, it is the attempted cover-up that cost him his job.

Anyone who thinks this isn't going to effect the election must have a great technique for removing sand after hiding their heads in it.

[TwilightZone]

42. You think the evidence here is on par with Watergate?

You can't possibly be serious. There was no question that Nixon was going to be impeached and that crimes were committed. Did you forget that he was pardoned by Ford? Have you forgotten all of the other people involved, including the ones who went to prison?

Give me a break.

Meanwhile, some legal experts aren't even certain that there *was* a crime committed here and don't think there's any basis for an indictment. Example: http://prospect.org/article/why-hillary-wont-be-indicted-and-shouldnt-be-objective-legal-analysis

Just because you desperately want Clinton indicted doesn't mean it's going to happen. And this sure as hell can't compete with Watergate, on any level.

As for "perception", if every politician who was ever accused of the "perception" of wrongdoing just up and quit, Congress would be empty. Sanders won't bother releasing his tax returns. Why? Who knows, maybe he's hiding something. I guess the perception that he's hiding something nefarious in his taxes means he should just drop out. Guilty!

This place just keeps getting funnier.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

49. On par with watergate? No. But, "every politician" isn't being investigated by the FBI.

And, "every politician" isn't making headlines because of their wrongdoing or perceived wrongdoing.

I find it rather hilarious that some people actually believe that this will have little effect on the election.

[TeddyR]

54. I haven't seen anyone in this thread

Promoting Hills' indictment. I hope she is NOT indicted - although I think she's a terrible candidate she's oodles better than Trump and she's almost certainly going to be the Dem nominee. It would be a disaster for the Dems if sometime between now and November Hills was indicted - we'd lose the White House and because the party would be in chaos we might suffer even greater losses in the house and senate. Could you imagine President Donald Trump with a filibuster proof majority Hills knows if she did something that is indictment-worthy or not, and hopefully she's taking that into consideration by continuing her campaign. If she did nothing that is criminal (she at least broke some rules based on today's report) then stay in the race. However, if she didn't something that might get her indicted then she should drop out immediately for the sake of the party. Christ, for the sake of America.

[okieinpain]

81. +1 n/t.

[Chezboo]

89. Watergate started as a third-rate burglary.

Unless you're privy to the inner doings of the FBI investigation into Clinton's emails, who knows what the evidence is and how far-reaching this scandal will go?

[Major Hogwash]

110. They've only exposed the visible tip of the iceberg so far.

So, I'm not sure this is as bad as Watergate.

But, remember that Hillary is not the only one being investigated by the FBI.
4 of her aides are also being investigated.
Along with Sidney Blumenthal.

One of her aides has already been given immunity to testify about his involvement.

And since this may lead into a full-blown investigation of CGI, don't forget that Bubba is also one of the founders of CGI.
Terry McAuliffe sat on the Board of Directors of CGI, and he is currently being investigated by the FBI.

This investigation could involve many more people we haven't even learned about yet.

[oasis]

16. Since it's okay for Bernie to limp into the convention with a shortage

of delegates because the "let's wait and see what happens " approach is the proper thing to do, let's follow that idea.

[NightWatcher]

18. Great question. Look at the responses, they'd rather lose

[winter is coming]

20. Are you kidding? Even if she goes to prison (which I don't expect), some people

will go to their graves convinced that this was all a RW attack.

[SoCalMusicLover]

46. And So What If It Is?

The reasons are less important to me than the impact.

If the right wing is behind this, and it gets Trump elected, props to them. That's their goal.

[Todays_Illusion]

22. The problem I have in a discussion about this. I wil not consider Trumb to be the Republican

until after the Republican Convention, nor will I consider Hillary to be the candidate until after the Democratic Convention.

And I will be voting for Bernie Sanders in the California primary.

[Skwmom]

23. Do pigs fly?

[Waiting For Everyman]

28. The downticket Dems who have to run with her

will start complaining and abandoning "the cause". That will be the sign that her exit is coming.

[Babel_17]

34. Who will carry water for bad descisions that matter?

What elected official, I mean. You'll need to be in an awfully safe seat in order to laugh off matters like this.

[ChisolmTrailDem]

37. They have clearly have decided not to kick this OP. Typical head-in-the-sand behavior. nt

[bvf]

51. They're still too busy getting new sign-ups

and arguing the inevitability crap.

A kick is a kick. We'll just have to make up for their sheepish yet willful absence.

[Lizzie Poppet]

40. If a request for indictment is returned and she DOESN'T drop out...

...and it's before the convention, then any superdelegate that doesn't flip to Bernie is a fucking idiot (and the party will deserve what it gets for putting that anti-democratic clusterfuck of a system in place).

[JustABozoOnThisBus]

44. No. An indictment is not a conviction ...

... and Hillary has no convictions.

[Tom Rinaldo]

59. No it isn't. Running under indictment would only guarentee a Trump White House

...since there would be no chance for her to prove her innocence before November while she was awaiting trial.

Look, I get why people who believe in Hillary feel strongly that she should not be "hounded out" of the race over some matter they believe is getting blown totally out of proportion driven by a witch hunt against her. But wee there to be an actual indictment it would no longer be a matter of small proportion. When was the last time a presidential candidate won the election with a criminal trial against them pending?

Fine, Clinton has not been indicted, I get that too. And were that to happen she may well not be convicted but she sure as hell wouldn't get elected either while the case was pending. Not with her already high negatives anyway. Then we would be gambling that he public would simply be too afraid of Trump not to elect Clinton. I for one am too afraid of Trump to ever want to take that gamble.

The question wasn't whether she should withdraw now. I can understand both sides of that debate, and I certainly don't expect her to withdraw unless she were indicted.

[XemaSab]

124. Hillary has no convictions.

[Tom Rinaldo]

45. How hard would it be to answer "Yes, but it's not going to happen"?

Too hard it seems

[DemocratSinceBirth]

58. Is my answer sufficient?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1251&pid=2051506

[Tom Rinaldo]

62. Yes. To me it is.

We don't have to completely see eye to eye on this, and I can't fault you for stating your opinion that you see such a scenario as extremely remote

[DemocratSinceBirth]

65. Thank you.

[joshcryer]

98. This thread is an echo chamber.

Delusional.

[BillZBubb]

47. Cultists don't turn on their idol, no matter how damning the information.

They'd rather drink the Kool Aid.

[JoePhilly]

135. They will when Bernie endorses Clinton next month.

A segment of his supporters will lose it completely.

[seabeyond]

50. Ida... Looking at the answers. What do you want from Clinton supporters when you all are trippin'

out in glee hoping beyond hope that this will take Clinton out. Now, we are Democrats and supporting a Democratic candidate. Why would you want us to be cheering her take down or have anything to do with the nasty comments in this thread?

[Justice]

68. Amen to that.

[senz]

56. Do you really think they care what she does?

Of course not. They just want to get her in there at any and all costs.

Nothing else matters to them.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

57. In the highly... highly...unlikely event it happened it would happen after the 6/14 primary.

I would then urge her delegates to support John Kerry. Joe Biden, Kirsten Gillibrand...


Anybody but the Vermont independent.

[snowy owl]

60. It's about judgement again. If this were Republican, Duer's would be all over it. Double standard.

[kstewart33]

61. Ida, I know the thought of an indictment is keeping you up at night.

But I'd take a Tylenol PM and get some sleep. Because all signs point to: it's not going to happen.

[IdaBriggs]

69. We've been looking at different evidence, and yes, it has stressed me out.

I don't like her as a candidate that I don't trust, I don't like the "immediate family of a former president", and once I started looking at the email stuff, part of me can't believe she didn't drop out last fall and play kingmaker instead.

It's going to be a crazy week. I haven't seen anything about Guccifer's plea yet -- if he pleads to hacking Blumenthal, the toast is going to be crispy...

[Voice for Peace]

84. Just saw something aboyt him intending to plead guilty, and likely

a deal of some kind. Sorry don't know where I read it.

[kstewart33]

88. I know. And I respect your commitment to Bernie and your case against Hillary.

But objectively, and I will say as a Hillary supporter, I don't yet see anything incriminating. Yes, she played fast and loose with emails, but if you read the report, the IG is especially critical of Colin Powell or admitted writing and sending emails on his laptop!

For her to be criminally indicted, the FBI must prove that she knowingly provided classified information to someone who should not have had it. General Petraeus was indicted because he intentionally and knowingly provided intelligence to his mistress that included the names of top secret operatives abroad, and even the locations of secret military installations.

For that, he should have done jail time IMHO. But he copped to community service and meaningless probation.

Now, to date, the evidence does not even come close to what Petraeus did. But let's say that some evidence is there. If so, she would get a slap on the wrist because of the precedent set by the sentence that Petraeus received.

At some point, we will turn to the general election. I hope that you will take a close look at Trump and the likely consequences if he is elected. Last night, Rachel Maddow reported that a newly appointed member of Trump's top team was formerly indicted on felony charges for $1 million in bribes. He escaped jail time by turning state's witness. This is but one example of how low this country will go if Trump wins the presidency.

Trump is a misogynistic, racist, pathologically lying con man, and as bad as you believe that Hillary is (and she certainly has her issues), she is no where near the scum that Trump is, and how he will irreparably scar the meaning of the US presidency. Heaven help us all if he is elected.

Good luck with managing your stress! Wish you the best.

[paulthompson]

94. She did that

For her to be criminally indicted, the FBI must prove that she knowingly provided classified information to someone who should not have had it.

Clinton sent classified information to Sid Blumenthal, a friend of hers who she knew had no security clearance at the time. Her own comments to him were later deemed classified due to containing "foreign government information," so she was telling him secrets she should not have.

And by the way, Petraeus was not found guilty for telling secrets to his lover. Turns out she had a top secret security clearance. He was found guilty of simply possessing classified documents in his house. Which is exactly what happened with Clinton. The only difference is emails vs. paper documents, but that doesn't matter to the law.

[kstewart33]

99. You are completely misinformed about Petraeus.

Moreover, you cannot prosecute someone for sending information that at the time was not classified.

That's the problem for making a case against Clinton. It's like trying to prosecute someone for an act that at the time was perfectly legal.

That's why they cannot nail her. And that's why credible sources indicate that as of yet, the FBI does not have the evidence to prosecute.

Condi and especially Powell acted as did Clinton and sometimes worse.

Put this horse out to pasture, Paul. It will not ride.

[paulthompson]

108. Am I?

Take it up with this guy, for instance:

May 3, 2016: Clinton's email scandal is likened to the charges that led to David Petraeus' conviction. Law professor Nathan Sales compares a possible indictment of Clinton with the conviction of former CIA Director David Petraeus in 2013. He notes that Petraeus did not ultimately plead guilty to sharing classified information with his mistress and biographer, but to charges related to keeping the information in a desk drawer inside his house. "The conduct that is being investigated [in Clinton's case] - keeping the documents on an unclassified server - that's kind of the digital equivalent of locking it in your desk drawer, which is ultimately what did in General Petraeus. ... Based on what we do know so far, I think there is a not insignificant chance that a grand jury could look at the facts and say, 'Actually, she may have violated various laws protecting classified information.'" (Rolling Stone, 5/3/2016)

Source: The Clinton Email Scandal Timeline ©2016 #ClintonEmailTimeline
http://thompsontimeline.com/The_Clinton_Email_Scandal_-_Long_Version_-_Part_8#entry050316clintonpetraeus

And your argument about not being able to prosecute someone for info that was not marked classified is so wrong I don't know where to begin. Lots of information is classified by its very nature, and people like Clinton are trained to know that. She signed a document when she became secretary of state saying she had the responsibility of recognizing classified information whether it was marked as such or not.

Let's say you mention a CIA asset's name or a top secret program. Nobody should have to tell you that's classified. And most of Clinton's emails were between her and her top aides. If one of them sent an email to another mentioning the name of a CIA asset, who was going to step in and tell them they can't say that because it's classified? Nobody. It was entirely up to them. That's why these emails weren't marked classifed at the time, because how the heck would that work? In the same way, if they were saying something classified on the phone, it wasn't like some other person was going to cut in with a loud beeping noise. Again, it was up to them. They were supposed to be responsible.

So this whole "not marked classified at the time" argument is only for people who don't know much or haven't thought it through. Take the recent case of NSA whistleblower Thomas Drake. He was convicted of misdemeanor charges simply for having one unimportant document in his house that was classified but not marked as such. Whereas for Clinton it was over 2,000, and some were rated above top secret! If Drake was convincted on this, then why not Clinton?

[GoneFishin]

63. She's a freakin' neocon and they insist she is progressive. They won't give a shit what she is

charged or even convicted of. She supported the overthrow of democratically elected governments and they still say she is progressive. They don't give a shit about reality. They are a cult.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

80. " They don't give a shit about reality. They are a cult."

Project much.

[taught_me_patience]

66. If it's a legit indictment, then she should withdrawl

and if she doesn't withdraw, the super delegates should step in and prevent her nomination.

-very strong Hillary supporter

[Justice]

67. But, you are not making this up

[IdaBriggs]

71. Not making up the "this is very bad" part. The indictment is a probable

outcome, but she is rich and famous, so everyone knows the rules are different.

Plus, former First Lady.

[PDittie]

82. The absolute, rigid denial has carried them this far

So no, they won't. As for the party itself, they'll install Biden as a one-termer and his vice-president as the person who runs in 2020. Just spit-ballin' here; the one thing I feel certain about is that Bernie will not be allowed to become the nominee of this Democratic Party no matter what.

But even though I believe Clinton is guilty of the same crime Sandy Berger and David Petraeus were indicted and prosecuted for -- mishandling classified information -- I do not believe she will be indicted. People who are obviously guilty of crimes are no-billed every day by grand juries. Just as people who have committed no violation are indicted, prosecuted, jailed... and even executed.

That's how our 'justice' system works in this country. Clinton will skate, her supporters will puff themselves up, say we were all full of BS, and she will be elected president in a landslide.

(And I expect to be swept out in the purge because of my 'violations'.)

[firebrand80]

85. The SDs should pick Bernie if that happens, obviously

However, you're talking about a pretty big "if." I am pretty sure that won't happen.

[LenaBaby61]

103. Totally agree ....

An indictment is not going to happen IMHO.

[Fawke Em]

86. They're consulting this:

[IdaBriggs]

87. That is fantastic! I think I've received all of them!

[bvf]

91. Shit, but that is funny!

"This wouldn't be a problem if she were a man" seems to duplicate the Free Spacen though.

I might suggest, "Who are you calling 'stupid'? " as an alternative. Saw that around here recently.

[okasha]

90. Investigators do not "reccommenf indictments."

They submit evidence to a prosecutor, who decides whether it's substantial enough to make a case. If so, the prosecutor submits the material to a Grand Jury, who either indict or no bill the person of interest based on the evidence.

The indictment fairy ain't coming, folks, if for no other reason that the only "impartial jurors" to be found would be Emperor Penguins fom Antarctica.

[DCBob]

92. They wont.

[Tarc]

93. "are we going to have to dance through "innocent until proven guilty""

I mean, it's only a bedrock principle of democracy after all...

[stevenleser]

95. I've already answered this. If indicted she should withdraw and

The delegates should nominate Biden or Kerry.

[IdaBriggs]

97. Out of curiosity, why not Bernie? If you've already answered,

I would like a link. (I think he's earned it, but he has pissed off a lot of people.)

[Turin_C3PO]

143. Warren might be good too.

She's progressive, a woman, and good at getting under Trump's skin lol. For the record though, I don't think Clinton did anything"indict worthy" so this is all much ado about nothing, IMO.

[bigtree]

96. no, and I'll take a great deal of pleasure in all of the desperate attempts to push her out

...Watergate vs. the email piffle?

This effort of Sanders supporters to smear Hillary has really steeled me against this canard. I can't wait for your rumor balloon to blow up in your faces.

[Flying Squirrel]

100. IOKIYAHRC. nt

[ucrdem]

106. I think the agents pushing this need to ask themselves a question:

What color is your parachute?

[barrow-wight]

107. If aliens descend from mars, will Bernie people agree he needs to cede the Earth to them?

I mean, really? I have no idea what the Republican-led FBI is going to do, but I'll burn that bridge when I get to it.

[ljm2002]

121. "the Republican-led FBI"...

...hmmm, who was it that chose Republican James Comey to head the FBI?

Oh yeah, that would be Barack Obama. So it must be Obama's fault that the FBI is investigating this?

[barrow-wight]

145. I doubt Obama chose him thinking he'd play politics with something like this.

[ljm2002]

146. Well it took you long enough to respond...

...but it's still a very weak response.

TTFN

[barrow-wight]

147. Perish the thought that I don't sit around all day waiting for a post of yours to respond to.

God, you would think I'm getting paid to do this or something.

[ChairmanAgnostic]

141. could we limit it to Alabama and South Carolina?

[barrow-wight]

144. lol

[Uncle Joe]

109. Kicked and recommended.

Thanks for the thread, IdaBriggs.

[Scuba]

113. They'd still support her even after she was convicted, arguing ...

... "she's appealing her conviction to the Supreme Court."

[Myrina]

117. It depends on what the meaning of 'indictment' is, Ida ...

You know how that crowd rolls ....

[IdaBriggs]

120. ROFLMAO! You win the Internet today!

[pdsimdars]

119. Well, doesn't 2.4 MILLION votes mean you are innocent?

Personally, I'm waiting for the "I'm not a crook" moment.

[Baitball Blogger]

122. If she takes Bernie in as VP she will protect the future for the

Democrats. Not that I expect her to do it.

[stillwaiting]

138. The funny thing is that doing this would also protect HER.

TPTB would never impeach HRC if the result would be Bernie. Never.

I don't want Bernie to be her V.P. though.

He needs to stay in the Senate to fight against the continuing neoliberal adventures that would surely continue full-speed ahead with an HRC Administration. That is, if Bernie does not somehow gain the nomination. Still hoping (Even if it is very unlikely).

[bkkyosemite]

127. Are you kidding. She says she will win at any cost.

[lumberjack_jeff]

129. Heck no! It's important that we nominate the person most likely to be impeached. n/t

[B Calm]

133. She needs to drop out now so the Democratic Party can put distance between her and save face

before it's too late.

[Carni]

136. No

They'll whine and moan about the vast RW conspiracy and spend the next several months screaming and hand wringing trying to connect Sanders and his followers to Trump.

You know it's awfully funny that the GOP mainstream couldn't even stop Trump (WITH Jeb Bush in the primary) yet they have these awesome, magical, all encompassing powers when *going after* the Clintons...must be because Hil and Bill are such dangerous progressive Liberals that threaten the whole status quo (BIG lol)

[Avalux]

142. No, they will never believe it. The Clintons are victims and do nothing wrong.

Everything's a right wing conspiracy, no matter what.

[WhiteTara]

151. If Bernie is indicted should he withdraw from the Senate?

[Buzz cook]

153. No

Indictment doesn't equal quilt.