Only about 0.04 percent of Sanders’s is.” In other words, neither of these candidates is dependent on financial support from those who work in some capacity for an oil company.

So let’s unpack the question from that Greenpeace activist. The suggestion appears to be that this 0.15 percent of all Clinton fundraising – a percentage that, again, consists of contributions from employees of oil and gas companies regardless of job title – somehow influences Clinton’s behavior. The activist didn’t connect the dots, but the implication is that this 0.15 percent makes Clinton more susceptible to the lures of the oil industry than does Sanders’s 0.04 percent.

MSNBC’s report noted that Clinton has not “taken any money from PACs tied to the oil and gas industry, or companies themselves.” Lobbyists with at least some connection to the industry have made contributions, but the bulk of that money has gone to super PACs that Clinton cannot legally control.

I can think of compelling lines of attack against each of the candidates, but this probably isn’t one of them. There’s ample room for a debate about Clinton’s and Sanders’ energy and environmental platforms – both, by my estimation, are offering excellent policy blueprints – but neither appears to be in Big Oil’s pocket.

http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/money-big-oil-isnt-always-what-it-appears-be?cid=sm_fb_maddow

Former President Bill Clinton, husband to Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton, suggested Thursday that he'd use his superdelegate vote to support Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT) if he won the Democratic nomination.

The former President told The New York Daily News that he did the same thing in 2008 when Hillary Clinton lost the nomination to then-Sen. Barack Obama (D-IL).

"It happened last time,” Clinton told the newspaper. “Last time I did what my candidate asked, I voted for Barack Obama.

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/bill-clinton-superdelegate-vote-sanders

MARCH 25, 2016 6:39 PM

...

About Hillary Clinton and her email, the biggest question concerns intent.

Did her offices purposefully give secrets to people without clearance or a need to know?

So far, the answer looks like “no.”

Beyond that, what partisan people are calling “crimes” is really just handling-policy breaches.

Were secret documents stolen by hackers and delivered to people without clearance?

The answer so far seems to be “no” also, but even if it did happen, it means there was a policy breach and not a crime.

Hackers could have attacked a secure server also.

But what is the worst case?

▪ During the George W. Bush administration, one of our CIA agents, Valerie Plame, was outed, endangering those who had been in contact with her.

No one was punished. (Vice President Dick Cheney’s chief of staff went to jail for lying to the FBI, not for passing secrets.)

▪ Gen. David Petraeus provided classified information to his mistress. His punishment? A misdemeanor for mishandling classified information. (He resigned as director of the CIA over the affair, not the handling of classified documents.)

Did Secretary Clinton’s office handle secret documents strictly by the book?

Obviously not, so therefore guidelines and rules need to be reviewed or addressed.

When our secretaries of state are trying to do their job, I think we can cut them a little slack.

Let’s fix the process, not burn the people trying to save the world.

Read more here: http://www.star-telegram.com/opinion/opn-columns-blogs/other-voices/article68344817.html

"There are currently about 12 FBI agents working full-time on the case," says the source, who would only speak anonymously about an open investigation.

http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/fed-source-about-12-fbi-agents-working-clinton-email-inquiry-n548026