Why I am troubled by the Hillary Supporters

[Chasstev365]

I was for Bernie from the beginning because he stands for the Democratic Party values of my youth, while, frankly, I don't feel Hillary Clinton does. Having said that, I would totally support Hillary over Trump or any other Republican in November.

What troubles me is how so many Hillary supporters dismiss the email issues as nothing and won't even entertain the possibility that she did anything wrong.

Whether you believe it or not, THIS THING IS REAL and I don't want it to hurt the party and elect Trump. It's not about Bernie getting the nomination or not. If Hillary is damaged goods, I would be fine with Elizabeth Warren, Joe Biden, or any other viable candidate.

Contrary to what you might think, I really hope there is nothing there! SERIOUSLY! However, if there is, we could be in real trouble.

[bigwillq]

1. I'm not concerned with supporters on any side.

I am not voting for supporters.

I care only about the candidates.

[MohRokTah]

2. FBI!!!! FITZMAS!!!!!! INDICTMENT FAIRY!!!!!!!! BWAAAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!!!

[Chasstev365]

8. You are so sure, huh?

[rateyes]

10. Just exactly how old are you?

[Chasstev365]

23. What does that matter?

[rateyes]

40. Because I am amazed at the level of immaturity

on display.

[Chasstev365]

46. Exactly, what was immature about a fair assessment of realities?

[TheCowsCameHome]

14. Enjoy your laughter while you can, sonny.

[MohRokTah]

15. BWAAAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!

[tonyt53]

3. If you want to bring up Hilary and those email, you have to include Powell and Rice

if you don't, then your motive for this post is clear.

[YouDig]

6. Exactly. That should be a sticky post at the top of the forum.

[pinebox]

16. Wrong. You need to quit spewing that TP as it's false

Hillary is NOT the same as Powell and Rice. In fact these are 2 very different things and you SHOULD know this by now.

But for the sake of transparency, I suggest you watch this and watch it ASAP because you need to know hat's going on.

[tonyt53]

30. In the eyes of the FBI, yes, they are all the same. The very reason nothing will happen.

And, i do know what is going on, Bernie's supporters are past desperation and now looking for a miracle. Funny thing is, Bernie still would not get the nomination. It would go to somebody else - a Democrat.

[pinebox]

36. So now you know what the FBI thinks?

Really?

That's mighty connected of you.


Sorry but you don't know wtf the FBI thinks right now and either do any of us on this message board. Not one damn thing.

The truth is however Hillary did knowingly break the rules and those very rules didn't even exist when Rice & Powell were SOS's. Neither had a server in their closet.

You should be concerned at this point but obviously you aren't. You better pray damn hard the FBI finds her innocent of any and all wrong doing because anything LESS will bury her.

This isn't about Bernie either, it's about Hillary. Nice spin though.

[YouDig]

41. It actually is the same as Rice and Powell. What the FBI cares about, classified info protocols,

make no distinction between a personal server and a personal email account with gmail. Hillary isn't getting indicted anymore than Powell or Rice are.

And nobody cares about the red tape state department rules. That's not a crime, if it were half the state department would be in jail.

The whole email thing has always been desperation and stupidity.

[randome]

33. You keep overlooking the basic fact that Powell and Rice also broke the rules.

It does not matter one iota about the precise way in which Clinton broke the rules. That's a straw-man argument. The only thing that matters is that she and Powell and Rice all broke some rules. Apparently that's what the electorate is seeing and your refusal to entertain that means you aren't going to be taken seriously.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]Stop looking for heroes. BE one.[/center][/font][hr]

[HooptieWagon]

25. Powell and Rice had unauthorized basement servers?

Provide evidence of that and I'll gladly mention them along with Clinton. Otherwise, I'll just consider it another Hillarian falsehood snd red herring.

[randome]

34. No, but all three broke some minor rules and that's what they have in common.

[hr][font color="blue"][center]Stop looking for heroes. BE one.[/center][/font][hr]

[pinebox]

37. It's amazing how they act like this is about nothing

and think it's all the same. I find that to be a complete disconnect

[workinclasszero]

31. Exactly

[YouDig]

4. I don't dismiss it as a matter of politics. It was dumb, she shouldn't have done it, and Trump is

going to use it against her.

What I dismiss is people thinking she put national security at risk or belongs or is going to prison. That's just stupid talk.

But it's a political vulnerability for sure.

[Fresh_Start]

12. +1

it was dumb, it was careless...it was not treason

[RandySF]

5. .

[azurnoir]

7. There is not one thing that troubles me about Hillary supporters

nothing I think they represent their leader quite well

[La Lioness Priyanka]

9. Bernie dismissed the email issue in his first debate with her

[pinebox]

19. "America is sick of hearing about the damn emails"

Ya they sure are.

We want this wrapped up and we want to know what's going on. The FBI however like all Gov't entities isn't fast. Look at how the Rod Blagojevich case took.

[JonLeibowitz]

38. He dismissed it as an issue at that time, saying that the process should play out

That process involves the State OIG and FBI.

Pretty simple, isn't it?

[La Lioness Priyanka]

43. No, what he said is that Americans are sick and tired of hearing

About her emails. None of what you said.

[JonLeibowitz]

44. LOL! Your post represents a true ignorance of what Bernie has said.

But a Sanders campaign aide says that stance on the emails “not new,” pointing to a CNN interview Sanders conducted shortly after the debate in which he said the investigation into her server should “play itself out.” Indeed, he made a similar comment to NBC News at the time.

http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/sanders-trying-reopen-the-clinton-email-issue

Are all HRC supporters this informed? Just a question.

[La Lioness Priyanka]

45. Lol. He said exactly what I said he said

Then he started losing and grasping at straws like emails and getting super delegates to switch

[JonLeibowitz]

47. You contradicted my statement that:

"He dismissed it as an issue at that time, saying that the process should play out"

I provided evidence that he did. You're welcome. Buh-Bye.

[La Lioness Priyanka]

48. At the debate he said no such thing.

[JonLeibowitz]

49. You are mistaken. And are spreading factual falsehoods (some might call that a lie)

Sanders was asked in an interview with CNN immediately after the debate what motivated him to use the now-famous "damn emails" line.

"Well, what motivated that is that I think the American people want substantive discussions on substantive issues," Sanders said. "There is a process in place for the email situation that Hillary Clinton is dealing with. Let it play itself out. As a nation, let us start focusing on why it is that so few have so much and so many have so little."

Sanders used a similar line the Sunday after the debate, telling ABC that he doesn't regret saying Americans don't care about Clinton's "damn emails" because he thinks he is right.
But that wasn't all Sanders said.
After listing issues that are more important to American families -- including college affordability, campaign finance reform and climate change -- Sanders said "All of those issues are more important than Hillary Clinton's emails, of which there is already a process underway to determine what happens."

http://www.cnn.com/2015/11/05/politics/bernie-sanders-email-hillary-clinton/

He was asked that question (bolded) and gave that response on the debate stage (after the debate was concluded).

You are simply incorrect.

[seabeyond]

11. And I think it is fabricated, with antiquated equip, walking in with previous SOS doing the same,

many in the gov doing the same, for only Clinton to be criminalized.

I have to wonder why you think it is the deal it is.

Differing views. Sorry, I just do not see it as the deal you do.

[boston bean]

13. I like how you will vote for her, even though as per you, the email thing is real and damaging..

Yet, you question others who will vote for her and don't give a damn at all about it and know it for what it is? A right wing conspiracy

Does it make you a better person to voice this crap against the democratic nominee?

[Chasstev365]

27. Love the hateful tone Boston; you are consistant!

[Blue_Adept]

28. It's Thunderdome Week! Jury Results Of Your Post

On Wed Jun 8, 2016, 10:08 AM an alert was sent on the following post:

I like how you will vote for her, even though as per you, the email thing is real and damaging..
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1251&pid=2157185

REASON FOR ALERT

This post is disruptive, hurtful, rude, insensitive, over-the-top, or otherwise inappropriate.

ALERTER'S COMMENTS

This too much! My post was calm, yet I should take this crap? ENOUGH!

You served on a randomly-selected Jury of DU members which reviewed this post. The review was completed at Wed Jun 8, 2016, 10:12 AM, and the Jury voted 2-5 to LEAVE IT.

Juror #1 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #2 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #3 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #4 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #5 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #6 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #7 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given

Thank you very much for participating in our Jury system, and we hope you will be able to participate again in the future.

[justiceischeap]

17. Here's why I'm not overly concerned about the email issue

She isn't and the Dem Party leaders don't seem too concerned either.

The only people that seem really concerned are those that want to make political hay of it. Some Sanders supporters, all Trump supporters, Judicial Watch (a GOP special interests group) and some self-proclaimed Democrats on DU.

Believe what you will about Hillary Clinton but I really don't think she would put the nation in jeopardy of a Donald Trump win if she thought, as a lawyer, that there were any laws broken. If it's found that there were classified documents incorrectly sent from this server, the FBI/AG then have to prove intent. Did she intend to do damage to the nation with her actions and, again, I don't think that will bear fruit because I think Clinton cares too much about her legacy to knowingly do something that puts national security at risk.

Also, the IG report stated she broke the rules but saw no proof of laws broken but had to send it to the FBI anyway--per regulations. The FBI has been investigating this for quite some time, which experts think indicates they aren't really finding any there "there."

Finally, I don't think President Obama would stain his legacy by supporting someone who is in imminent danger of being indicted and you can bet he's been in touch with people he needs to be in touch with to get an inkling of where this is going.

That said, I could be completely too optimistic and naive and be completely wrong but I just don't think anything will come of this. Mostly it's because after 25+ years of people (mostly the Republican party) trying to pin some type of crime on Hillary Clinton, they would have done so by now. So this tells me that she may skirt rules (show me a politician at the national level who hasn't done so at one time or another) but, she isn't this nefarious criminal mastermind the Republican party would like you to believe (and many do believe it, so they've done a really good job of creating that image of her) she is.

[moriah]

18. Stupid? Yes. Criminal where an indictment is imminent? No.

And as I've said before, no candidate is perfect. We Dems can insist on Hillary and every Cabinet official having an IT boss even they must answer to on computer issues far more easily than the Republicans can keep enough Xanax in Trump so he doesn't nuke another country if one of their reporters throws a shoe at him.

[ecstatic]

22. lol! nt

[auntpurl]

26. WELL PUT.

[betsuni]

20. You got trouble!

[ecstatic]

21. There weren't any standards, now there are.

She emailed everyone from that address and nobody said shit. She's not an IT guru by any stretch, so blaming her is a joke. It is what it is. Lesson learned, time to move forward.

[Hoyt]

24. As far as I'm concerned, if she didn't send sensitive info to enemies, to people who might profit

improperly from it, etc., it was little more than a mistake. A mistake millions of people have made as we have transitioned to the digital age. It was the responsibility of her IT staff to safeguard information in any situation. If Sanders had ever achieved Clinton's level, I would not be surprised if he would have something similar, maybe worse. Truthfully, I bet the info was safer on her server than the government's.

[upaloopa]

29. Stop just fucking stop

[-none]

32. This is where so many people go wrong.

"...I don't want it to hurt the party and elect Trump."

It is not or at least should not be, about the party, but should be about the American people as a whole, regardless of the party. What does the candidates themselves stand for... and against?
What is best for all of us. What is best for the country as a whole?
At the very least, it should not be about the continuing welfare of the well to do, but how do we best help those in need?
Continuing to elect the rich, well to do, 1% types is, as we are seeing more and more of, is counter productive to the nations welfare.
We need to fundamentally change the way we do elections. No more electronic voting machines. Paper and pencil ballots only. Allow the people to have their say, not just those that are now buying the elections.
No more privately owned and programed electronic voting machines, with no transparency and no real way to verify the count.
Real teeth in our election laws, from eliminating gerrymandering, to properly maintaining the voter rolls, to the very way we conduct the elections themselves.

[cynatnite]

35. She made a mistake regarding the server...

There is no question about that.

Illegal? No, I do not think she broke the law. Also, I've felt she has been held to a different standard than previous Sec of States.

I'm not dismissing it. I just don't take it as seriously as others.

[hrmjustin]

39. It was an error but i don't think she will or should face charges over it.

[artyteacher]

42. i hears she had a @clintonmail.com

Or some such email address. If that was an issue, wouldn't someone had said something?

[Gothmog]

50. I have been following this issue closely

From a legal standpoint, I really do not believe that she broke the law and I seriously doubt that there will be an indictment. The law requires specific intent or culpable mental state (mens rea) and there is none in this case. The statutes in question all require intent or gross negligence which is why I am not worried.

Again, I have been following this issue closely for a long time and I am not worried about an indictment.

[yodermon]

51. A good legal analysis, from a lawyer and a former editor of Harvard Law Review.

https://beckandlee.wordpress.com/2016/06/06/why-hillary-clintons-emails-matter-a-legal-analysis/

...
As far as Question No. 1 goes (Were Clinton’s emails removed from their proper of custody?), there is clear probable cause to answer “yes.” When Clinton’s emails were stored on an unapproved private email server in her home, they were removed from their proper place of custody per the guidelines and obligations governing Clinton as Secretary of State.

That leaves Question No. 2: Did the removal of Clinton’s emails occur because of her gross negligence? For this question, the Report has several relevant findings. According to Clinton’s Chief of Staff, there was never a consultation regarding her use of a private email account and server. That means no lawyers (including private counsel and the State Department’s general counsel) — or anyone else, for that matter — were consulted regarding the appropriateness of Clinton’s email system. The Report also notes that Clinton’s Deputy Chief of Staff expressly rejected a proposal from other State Department officers to furnish Clinton with a State Department Blackberry and email address.
...
The Report’s findings suggest clear probable cause that Clinton acted with gross negligence. It seems that, at a minimum, Clinton and her staff ought to have consulted with someone — perhaps not necessarily a lawyer, but someone — before using the private email and server, and prior to rejecting the proposal, from other State Department officers, to receive a State Department Blackberry and email address. The failure to do so embodies a lack of even slight diligence or care on Clinton’s part. The situation might be different if Clinton had consulted someone and received bad advice — then it could be readily established that the removal of Clinton’s emails from their proper place of custody was due to ordinary, not gross, negligence. But to fail to seek any guidance on the issue would seem to fit the very definition of gross negligence.

While the statutory language and known facts seem to present a rather clear-cut case to indict, this should not be the end of the analysis. Thorough consideration of any legal question also requires an examination of what relevant case law there happens to be.

According to my own research, there is not much. References to 18 U.S.C. s. 793(f) in reported decisions are few and far between. I did find some items of note, however. First, in a 1992 opinion (U.S. v. McGuinness, 35 M.J. 149), the U.S. Court of Military Justice expressly stated that the statute does not require the defendant to have acted with an intention to harm the United States or to benefit a foreign nation. Besides supporting the use of a standard, dictionary meaning of “gross negligence,” this holding eviscerates the oft-heard argument that Clinton should not be indicted on the basis of lack of “intent” or “motive.”

More at link, including examples of other successful prosecutions under the statute.
He is a Bernie supporter, he issues that caveat in the beginning of the piece.

[Dem2]

52. I think your concern is overblown

History tells us that the boss doesn't take a hit in these sorts of cases.

re: Ollie North is a good example - Reagan should have been taken out by that scandal - which was 100x more severe than this - and basically he was allowed to play stupid. There are many less severe examples. Email stuff doesn't even rise to a level of concern for me. Also, Trump appears to have mental issues that are being recognized by everybody now, even his own party.

[treestar]

53. If it wasn't the email, it would be some other thing

The Rs and the media look for something they can drum up. Look how they have done that before with Obama and Bill Clinton. It's what they do. And it never pans out for them. They get the troglodytes to repeat it ad nauseum, but it's never a real thing.