Hillary is now hurting the party and Bernie

[pinebox]

Full stop.

Hillary is hurting both the party & Bernie on an epic scale. She needs to step down NOW. This is disenfranchising voters in who will be voting in a GE. Dems can not afford this at all. As it is, most American's do not trust her and now all this with the emails and how she knowingly lied about it all for over a year?

This is seriously bad. Really bad. She is hurting both the party and in the process, making Bernie look as well who is now seemingly looking like he could be the candidate thanks to all of this.

This is all over the news and all over the internet and it is a wildfire of a story covered by every single major media outlet in both print and web as a top story and has been for the last 48 hours now.

This is really hurting her, her image and the Democratic Party overall. I don't want to see her be recommended for indictment but at this stage, the damage has already been done. She no longer needs to be.

[LexVegas]

1. ...

[pinebox]

6. here let me help

[elleng]

11. Bad judgment.

[Ferd Berfel]

70. yes, just one episode of bad judgment after another

It's almost as though she's showing her arrogance and that she's entitled to the Office.

[840high]

77. Exactly. She is putting

our party and country through another mess made by her.

[floriduck]

82. Sort of like the Tourettes of bad judgment.

[inchhigh]

2. She needs to step down NOW.

The calls will be deafening in about a week. The only question left is how much she breaks on her way out the door.

[Trust Buster]

3. Not according to the electorate. They awarded her more votes and delegates than they have

Sanders. But, your politically biased opinion is duly noted......LOL

[hellofromreddit]

9. I'm not saying you're wrong, but...

...those primary results reflect the past. They tell us nothing at all about the reaction of people today.

So what you wrote is effectively meaningless.

[elleng]

15. Exactly.

Lots of

[Trust Buster]

16. The electorate learned nothing new about emails. They see it for what it is. A political witch hunt.

Your candidate was unable to win on the merits. Case closed.

[nadinbrzezinski]

35. Nothing new...like what she told for a year

Was contradicted by the report. Her sever was not above board, nor would have been authorized.

[wendylaroux]

80. Bernie won in open primaries,duh.the general is all open.duh

[JDPriestly]

10. She received most of the votes before this IG report was issued.

The purpose of the convention is to pick the candidate who can win in the general election. The person who got the most votes should normally win. But here we have to ask ourselves whether Hillary is so damaged not just by the facts in her case but by the overriding fact that the Republicans will make this into a huge thing by November that she is likely to lose.

We do not have majorities in either the Senate or the House (thanks in huge part to poor management by the DNC with Debbie Wasserman Schultz at the helm). We have to win the White House if we are to have any say in the way our country is run.

Hillary should carefully consider what is best for the country at this point. It is clearly Bernie Sanders as the Democratic candidate and not Hillary.

[Trust Buster]

19. Sorry, the IG report reiterated what was already know. Your Hail Mary pass will fail. That's all.

[JDPriestly]

34. The IG report made it official.

If she can't obey the rules of the federal government, why should anyone vote for her in the general election? The president is supposed to make sure that the laws passed by Congress are obeyed. If she can't obey simple and obviously important rules, how can she be trusted to keep the laws passed by Congress?

That is the question that Republicans and other thinking citizens will ask. As I said, it may not be fair, but it is the reality. She needs to understand what Republicans will make of this. The elections in this country are decided by Independent and uninformed voters. That's the reality. Hillary will not be able to and will not have the timely attention of those voters in order to make her case to them. They will watch the news and decide she cheated. Whether that is true or not, that is what the accepted facts will be.

Hillary needs to drop out. This has actually been predictable for a long time. Trump is a really, really bad candidate, so she might have a chance based on that. But because her trust numbers are so low, she would be a perfect candidate for a Republican impeachment part something they have been wishing for since Nixon. The fact that she worked on the committee around the time of Nixon's impeachment would make her all the more attractive as a candidate for impeachment. Life is not always fair.

[840high]

79. Are you awake?

[anotherproletariat]

30. And the IG report was not really about her, but a review of the State Department security...

Inspector General's Report On Clinton's Email Greatly Exaggerated By Media Outlets

http://crooksandliars.com/2016/05/oig-report-states-email-handling-including

[JDPriestly]

38. True. But tell that to the voters and the Republican campaign ad creators.

[lagomorph777]

69. "Hillary should carefully consider what is best for the country at this point."

Hey, there's a first time for everything.

[Maedhros]

4. THEY.DON'T.CARE.

Because they don't want this to be an issue, POOF! It magically becomes a non issue...inside their partisan bubble. The real world is for chumps...

[merrily]

8. It's so much bigger (for some) than "mere" partisanship or principle:

It's economic.

[JDPriestly]

5. K&R. It may not be fair, but that is the way our election system works.

There is no way she can recover from this before the November election.

Feel the Bern!

[rock]

7. Reminds me Gore and Bush

The SCOTUS ruled Gore was possibly damaging Bush by insisting on counting the votes, which would have lead to Gore having the greater number of votes and this would damage poor little ol' Bush's chance of being pretzeldent. I guess poor little ol' Bernie has the same problem with Hillary.

[merrily]

12. Yeah, go with that.

LOL!

[pinebox]

14. Unbelievable.

[rock]

54. Too late

I did.

[pinebox]

13. Gore or Bush weren't under an FBI criminal investigation. Sorry.

[rock]

55. And ice floats on water

Too bad.

[B Calm]

17. It's been a bad week for the Hillary campaign, but it's not like we didn't warn you!

She was a flawed candidate from the get-go!

[pinebox]

20. Bingo! Winner winner chicken dinner!

[beaglelover]

18. LOL!!!! Seriously????????????????????????????????????????????

[pinebox]

21. Seriously!

[beaglelover]

25. Hate to burst your bubble, but it ain't gonna happen.

Bernie will NEVER be the D nominee. He'll go back to being a very inconsequential US senator from a teeny tiny state and Hillary will be the next POTUS!!! LOVE IT!!!!!!

[pinebox]

45. Uh huh sure

and if she is she will be impeached on day 1.
Bernie was a inconsequential US senator? The guy who founded the progressive caucus? Who voted against the IWR? WHo championed vets with McCain? The guy who's known as the amendment king?

What has Hillary done but go to war and have a foundation which is ironically being investigated too.

Drip drip.....

[jham123]

68. Wow

After that post, how can anyone question why some Bernie supporters will never heal in time for the GE to vote for Hillary. Are you not able to hear yourself nor discern the venom contained within that post??

I like a good debate just like the person, but that post is quite heinous.

[840high]

81. Not if I can help it. There are

many,many like me.

[leftynyc]

22. From a poster who

uses DONALD TRUMP'S SON IN LAWS NEWSPAPER to declare Hillary is toast. How many more of these pathetic OP's are you going to start? At least you didn't do your usual linking to right wing sewers this time. Your desperation smells rancid.

[writes3000]

26. It's non stop. Completely non stop. Marrying with the Right to tear down Dems. Horrible.

[leftynyc]

32. It's like they think nobody

will check out sources. And have become so desperate they use donnie's son in law's paper. Any real Democrat would have self deleted that post IMMEDIATELY. And I'll NEVER believe they didn't know who owned the paper. They can deny it until they're blue in the face.

[pinebox]

33. Uh huh sure when in doubt attack the messenger

You sound mad at facts. Perhaps you are just now coming to the realization of what is actually happening.
Facts have NO political bias. You're desperate to defend your candidate who is in a world of trouble and nothing but. The writing is on the wall. It's all over the place. Not my fault you don't see it.

Pick your poison because it's reality check time for Hillary supporters!

And lastly, thanks for the kick! <3

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/05/email-hillary-clinton/484634/
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/hillary-clinton-doubles-email-scandal-allowed/story?id=39400634
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/05/27/opinion/hillary-clinton-drowning-in-email.html
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/why-the-new-report-on-hillary-clintons-email-is-so-damning/2016/05/27/e02d4f3a-2402-11e6-aa84-42391ba52c91_story.html
http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slatest/2016/05/25/state_department_inspector_general_report_criticizes_hillary_clinton_for.html
http://www.politico.com/story/2016/05/gop-sees-summer-of-scandal-for-clinton-223536
http://theweek.com/speedreads/626837/seth-meyers-digs-into-hillary-clintons-latest-emails-scandal-dripdripdrip
http://www.inquisitr.com/3135494/hillary-clinton-email-probe-update-following-state-departments-scathing-audit-fbi-could-push-for-hillarys-indictment/

[leftynyc]

65. Yawwwwwnnnnnn

Keep posting from right wing sewers - the jig is up. I'll KEEP kicking so more and more people see EXACTLY where you're coming from.

[pinebox]

85. No your jig is up. Welcome to reality.

Which link did I post above is to a RW source? Hm? Show us all please. We'll wait. Meanwhile facts don't have a RW or a LE bias. These are facts and you can choose to ignore them with your head in the sand or you can come and see things for what they are.

You can deny all you want but the fact remains this story is NOT going away and it won't.
Hillary is damaging her brand which was already tarnished, the Democratic party and other people now as well.

So please, you have no defense for anything other than attacking a source and only that despite that all of the articles contained within are FACTUAL.

You want to go with that? You go for it but don't say we didn't tell you long ago when your candidate gets crushed.

[floppyboo]

66. Donald Trump's son-in-law owns the Washington Post?

[leftynyc]

67. No - this particular poster

has a very nasty habit of sourcing right wing sewers. I was specifically talking about this thread:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1251&pid=2066863


One of his/hers latest attempts to claim ignorance of their own sources. It's pathetic and desperate.

[jham123]

71. yeah but

The OP is correct, this news story is on every outlet possible. News, Cable, print, magazines eZines, web news, web pages and blogs.

[floppyboo]

73. oh. Well, they should know better. Honey attracts more bees than vinegar. Why not use MSNBC or WaPo?

[NCTraveler]

23. This is flat out pathetic.

I'm glad I don't have to make these arguments.

[Gothmog]

29. These posts are getting rather sad

[mindwalker_i]

57. I'm so glad you posted that

Hadn't seen it in weeks.

[ucrdem]

24. California ♥ Hillary

Happy long weekend!

[Gothmog]

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

I am amused by the Sanders supporters and republicans praying for an 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.”

[pinebox]

36. Who'd praying for an indictment?

You obviously didn't read what I wrote. Re-read again specifically where I said "I don't want to see her be recommended for indictment"

[Gothmog]

40. There will be no indictment or recommendation for an indictment

The premise of your thread is sad and wrong

[pinebox]

46. The crystal ball called, it's missing it's owner

[Gothmog]

60. The law is clear here

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.

[pinebox]

87. Check this out.

http://www.politico.com/story/2016/05/hillary-clinton-email-inspector-general-report-223553

[Gothmog]

88. Laypersons are cute and adorable when they make legal claims

That is not a law but a rule. No laws were broken.

[pinebox]

89. It's even more adorable when you claim to know what I do

Pssst. You don't

We'll see what the FBI has to say. The damage however is done. She doesn't have to be indicted. She openly lied to the American people for over a year.

[Gothmog]

94. Thank you for the laughs

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.

[pinebox]

96. She is in trouble.

Period. Watch and take in and think about it. It is NOT just about her being indicted. It's far more than that.

She is toast and she is hurting the party big time.

[ProgressiveEconomist]

62. Thanks so much for that strong antidote

to the sheer madness that's dominating GDP today.

[jzodda]

28. Another thread to the trash heap

n/t

[pinebox]

37. Thanks for the kick <3

[cherokeeprogressive]

42. Nothin' like kicking it by letting us all know it needs to sink.

Hoo Hah.

[ProgressiveEconomist]

31. "Hurting Bernie"?!

How can the nominee hurt the sore loser who refuses to concede long after he has become desperate and irrelevant? It's always the other way round.

[pinebox]

39. Remind us again how Hillary campaigned into June against Obama

Oh that.

She is under an FBI investigation. It isn't hard. She is hurting both Bernie and the party as a whole. I explained that. Please re-read what I wrote

[ProgressiveEconomist]

48. She was neck and neck with President Obama--Bernie

is 770 delegates down with just 917 to go. See http://politico.com/2016-election/results/delegate-count-tracker

Anybody who thinks Bernie has any chance of becoming the nominee is just delusional IMO. It was over months ago.

[pinebox]

50. Yup we're all delusional

Ya that will work well while your candidate is under an FBI investigation and you dismiss the overall effects it has

[xloadiex]

52. Let's see how many of those super delegates

are going to commit political suicide by nominating a candidate with this much baggage. It won't be forgotten.

[Beacool]

41. Sanders.will.NOT.be.the.nominee.

[cherokeeprogressive]

44. Don't. Care.

[pinebox]

47. See. It's larger that that.

It isn't solely about Bernie but you fail to grasp that.

[Beacool]

51. Nope, I just fail to care about Hillary's server.

[HooptieWagon]

84. FBI does.

And they care enough that they've given immunity to witnesses and extridicted a hacker from Romania to get their testimony. Must be some important shit going down for them to go to all that trouble.

[Lizzie Poppet]

64. Perhaps not...but if Hillary is, it will be a disaster.

Far too damaged at this point to survive a GE campaign...

[Surya Gayatri]

43. Hyperbole...the worst rhetorical trick in the world.

[cherokeeprogressive]

49. ...

[url=https://imgflip.com/i/14viwx][img][/img][/url][url=https://imgflip.com/memegenerator]via Imgflip Meme Maker[/url]

[Herman4747]

53. Far too selfish & narcissistic to step down.

It's all about "Her," don't you know?

[840high]

83. It totally is all about her.

[riversedge]

56. Your OP's get sillier each time you post.

The Force is with Hillary--->V-I-C-T-O-R-Y

[Gothmog]

61. But they are also getting funnier

[riversedge]

91. You many be right.

[Jester Messiah]

76. The dark side, maybe. n/t

[mindwalker_i]

58. The damage done to the democratic party is partially self-inflicted

They pushed Hillary, possibly screwed with votes, etc. They ignored everyone who said Hillary was a bad candidate. Now, this whole thing makes the whole party look crooked. And the more people try to blow it off, the more crooked it looks.

There are times when the party seems to just love punching itself in the face. Putting Kerry against W was kind of one of those times. But pushing Hillary (still) with serious legal questions over her is fucking insanity.

[floppyboo]

72. Warning from History!

Canada had to put up with 9 years of RW PM Harper after Paul Martin discredited the Liberal party with the damning Gomery inquiry. Don't do it neighbour!!!

[mindwalker_i]

74. And we had to deal with 8 years of W

Bill was pretty good in a lot of ways, but the scandals - some real, some manufactured by the RW - did their damage. Hillary is actually worse than Bill in those terms.

[SidDithers]

59. Oh FFS...

This is what happens when you get your news from The Observer.



Sid

[DLCWIdem]

86. No, no these guys live on Fantasy Island.

But they get to return to the real world on June 7.

[Darb]

63. Jesus Christ what a gumby-like reach.

Damn.

[AzDar]

75. Anyone with an ounce of integrity would drop-out...For Party and Country.

[floppyboo]

78. As Chuck Todd said, she wouldn't even be qualified to run for AG

[pdsimdars]

90. I know! And that was Chuck Todd! Can you imagine?

[imagine2015]

92. Clinton should withdraw her name now for the good of the country. Put the people first.

[pinebox]

93. That is correct

[lostnfound]

97. Not to mention the good of the Demoxratic party

Which will get crippled by months of republican characterizations that democrats can't be trusted with national security and that she is a liar
The only Saving grace if you can call it that is that trump is such an awful candidate that almost no one wants him
But the democrats are risking a loss with this and an unthinkable outcome

[potone]

95. What this is about is not only national security...

but also judgment. I have no idea how serious the actual damage was, but what it does show, as does the fact that she gave speeches for Goldman Sachs, is that Hillary has poor judgment. She had to know in both cases that there was a good chance that she would run for president. For that reason alone, she should have conducted herself with a view to preventing questions of her integrity from arising. Instead, she seems to have thought that she could explain away anything, no matter how bad it looked. This is not a good quality in a presidential candidate. It signals arrogance and a a sense of entitlement.

[jillan]

98. K&R!

very well said.