Honest Question re E-mails and Private Server

[highprincipleswork]

Last edited Sat Apr 30, 2016, 05:18 AM - Edit history (2)

What happens if Hillary's e-mail and private server investigation does bubble over after she is nominated, and is clearly doing great harm to the presidential race?

Are there any best options at that point available to the Democratic Party, short of soldiering through as George McGovern did after the Eagleton news drama?

Really curious how we and the Democratic Party would and could react IF those issues actually turned out to be real and devastatingly hurtful to our chances in November.

What if even Hillary thought that this was impacting the race in a way that was unfair to the Democratic Party and our chances?


(For anyone interested, I may have found something like a correct answer to my own question, which I've posted in reply#20. Sounds right to me, but still interested in knowing anything more.)

[Thinkingabout]

1. She can release her delegates to someone else like Biden, O'Malley, Warren

The list goes on and on. She released her delegates in 2008 to Obama and nominated Obama. It will not default to Sanders

[highprincipleswork]

4. I'm talking after the nomination, after the convention.

[Thinkingabout]

13. After the convention if Hillary is the nominee then she will be the nominee.

If you are banking on a indictment then you are going to be disappointed. In fact Sanders campaign is under scrutiny by the FEC. What if something happens there before the convention? Honest question.

[highprincipleswork]

17. Fine. If something happens w the FEC & Bernie, I am sure it will affect his chances, that is clear.

Are you willing then to accept the same about Hillary?

But more importantly, I'm not sure I sense the air of authority about your "she will be the nominee" statement, even though that would be accurate if she was chosen at the convention.

For instance, McGovern withdrew the VP slot after the Eagleton news cycles were destroying the campaign. Could the Democratic Party, particularly if Hillary agreed, withdraw her nomination after the fact and go with someone else? For the good of the Party and our chances in this very important election?

I seriously would like to know.

[Thinkingabout]

19. Yes, look, it is most important to elect Democrats from president to tbe lowest office.

Can you accept Hillary as the Nominee and support Democratic candidates?

[highprincipleswork]

22. First of all, the primaries are not over. I'm working for Bernie as long as I can, presumably

through California at least and probably on to the convention.

Then we will see what happens at the convention.

If Hillary does become the nominee, I am waiting to see what she does to unite the Party. If she and the Democratic Party espouse the principles that I support, then I will surely vote for her. I may even work for her and donate and so forth.

If Hillary and the Democratic Party turn their backs on the vast numbers of people who are highly energized about Bernie, I think they will be making a very foolish mistake. I will decide what to do about that then.

I always support Democrats, when they act like Democrats. That is why I do not currently donate to the DNC or any other organized Democratic Party group but only to Democrats who run with principles I support. I usually vote a straight Democratic ticket, for over forty years.

My fervent hope is that Hillary and the Democratic Party wake up to the colossal opportunity we have for a big tent that actively works for Progressive causes and makes us all feel listened to and welcome.

[Thinkingabout]

25. There are not any purists, I can not vote for a Republican, especially the choices

This year, I will vote as I do every election, do not look for a purists.

It is okay to continue to support Sanders as I will continue to support Hillary, my question is can you get behind the DNC nominee in order to have a president to work for progressive ideas?

[Rosa Luxemburg]

46. It's not that she will be indicted

but that there will be the tornado attack of the GOP with the help of the media if she is the nominee. No doubt they will time the hearings prior to the general election. The bad publicity will put doubt in the voters' minds even if she is innocent.

[Thinkingabout]

48. Has the GOP been a tornado attack for the last twenty five years on the Clintons?

Yes, it is like putting on one's shoes everyday. What they have not had a tornado attack on Sanders, the wind has not even started.

If you are in hopes of an indictment against it will be a disappointment, it is not going to happen, would this result in Sanders being the nominee, this also will not happen. If indictment before the convention Hillary can release her delegates to whomever she pleases, like a Biden, O'Malley, Warren or someone else.

[Rosa Luxemburg]

49. she hasn't been the nominee before

[Thinkingabout]

50. She wasn't even running for any office and they have vetted her.

I heard the other day the Republicans was not going to vet Sanders, no need, Hillary has been vetted for years, nothing yet from their getting. Lots of unproven talking points, I do not concern myself with their getting.

[SFnomad]

2. Whenever someone prefaces something with "honest question" ... you know it won't be

Here is an "Honest Question" for you ...

When Secretary Clinton announced her bid for the Presidency, we heard from many sources about how old she was, even though she will be younger than Reagan was at his inauguration. Being that BS is 6 years older than Secretary Clinton, why haven't we heard one thing about his age?

[BreakfastClub]

5. I've noticed the same thing. It's never an "honest" question. As for the age thing,

Hillary was fortunate that an older man ran against her, otherwise we would never have heard the end of it about her being "too old." Of course, Bernie is not too old. He's a man, but at least his age made it impossible for her adversaries to use her age against her. And another thing on that same topic, I can't imagine young adults going crazy for a woman candidate who was Bernie's age. It would never happen. We are up to our ears in sexism in this society.

[highprincipleswork]

8. Would you like to answer my question, instead of saying it isn't honest? What isn't honest is your

answer. My question is very honest. I really, really, really would like to know.

As to Bernie's age, just to answer that question you didn't really ask, I am slightly concerned about his age. However, based on his health reports and how he appears on the trail, he seems in very good shape. I would want him to pick a younger V.P., and one in very good shape. That would be my position on that.

But you see, at least I answered your question, even though you didn't really ask it, but just made accusations about me. I'm hoping that someone knowledgeable about the way things work can actually answer mine instead of just trying to smear me.

[Blue_Adept]

27. We get this honest question about once per day in the forum

So it's a bit tiring for some because so many times it's anything but an honest question.

[SFnomad]

10. I agree with you ... on all points n/t

[highprincipleswork]

6. Fine, ask about his age then. But don't question my honest question. It is honest, and I got

one answer above, and then you didn't answer.

[SFnomad]

12. It's not an honest question ... it's just another bs way to bring up the "email" issue n/t

[highprincipleswork]

15. You choose to ignore the fact she is under investigation, and to not even think about what can/could

be done if the FBI investigation turns out negative in any way.

Have you ever noticed that ignoring bad things that might happen is not an effective strategy, especially when they have groovy, big labels like "FBI investigation"?

[DemocratSinceBirth]

36. Jim Rome used to say

Jim Rome used to say when someone prefaces his or her remarks with "no insult intended" someone is bound to be insulted.

[SheilaT]

3. It seems to me that it is highly possible that

this entire investigation is being put on a slow track precisely to fuck Hillary's election possibilities.

I will state right here that I am absolutely not a fan of hers. I'm a strong Bernie supporter, and while I would love to see him get the nomination totally on his own merits, I think that the Hillary supporters really ought to be terrified that the longer the email thing drags on, the likelier it is that a finding not to her benefit will occur after she's secured the nomination. Thus totally screwing her election.

And even as a Bernie supporter, I'm appalled that this is dragging on as it is.

[highprincipleswork]

7. What I am asking is, if it was clearly doing harm to her candidacy, after nomination, what if

anything could she and the Democratic Party do to remedy the situation, presuming of course that they think something should be done?

[SheilaT]

11. If she gets the nomination and then an indictment comes down,

or even if no indictment some sort of clear proof that she screwed up totally, then her chances of winning in November are totally fucked. It would be vastly worse than what happened in 1972 with McGovern and Thomas Eagleton. Those of you too young to remember, really ought to read up on this.

The short version is that McGovern selected Tom Eagleton of Missouri to be his running mate, but then two weeks after the convention the fact that Eagleton had had electro shoci treatment for depression came out and was quickly dropped from the ticket in an act of pure cowardice on McGovern's part. After various Democrats declined to be the VP candidate, Sargent Shriver agreed to join the ticket.

It is also true that in 1972 Richard Nixon was the incumbent, a usually solid place to be, and rather popular in addition. The Nixon that we all know and hate is an artifact of his second administration and the entire Watergate debacle. So it is highly probably that McGovern would not have won anyway, but what happened to him needs to be held in mind when considering the Hillary email thing.

[Punkingal]

39. You stated it exactly as I remember it.

And I agree about the email thing.

[tularetom]

28. It's a lose lose proposition for her

If the FBI publicly recommends prosecution, she's screwed regardless of when it happens.

If they take no action before the convention, the campaign meme for the Republicans will be that Obama intervened to squelch the investigation. At that point she's screwed. If later she's exonerated, well, that just proves to the public that Obama interfered, if she's indicted, she's indicted. Either way it looks really bad for her.

If they want to save her sorry ass, they'd better act quickly. The appearance of presidential interference will still be there and Trump or whoever will beat it to death. But at least it gives them time to come up with a cover story before the real nasty stuff hits the fan.

And this email scandal is just the tip of the iceberg. On top of all the wars, fracking, trade agreements there is all the Clinton drama. I can't believe anybody is looking forward to four years of the same old shit.

[pdsimdars]

32. Another point on this is that you should hear the Republicans talk about it.

There is already talk of impeachment. Hiding that government email on her private server is a crime and all those months during the Benghazi hearings they did ask her for her emails on Benghazi and she said she had none. That is, she lied to them. And then that hacker, hacked Sid Blumenthal and found his emails where they were going back and forth about it. Oops!
There are REAL things there which they don't want to acknowledge, to their detriment.

[grasswire]

55. heck, they are even talking about impeaching Obama if she walks.

fast track, symbolic impeachment of Obama.

[BreakfastClub]

9. There is no possibility that Hillary is going to be

indicted for anything. Period. She has done nothing wrong and this stupidity is a republican sideshow. You might as well be asking what would happen if Hillary got indicted over Benghazi. It's bullshit. Even Bernie knows it and that's why he doesn't mention it. It's outright lunacy to actually believe such nonsense.

[highprincipleswork]

14. If you look at the reporting over this, it does not seem like Benghazi at all. Also, this is an FBI

investigation. You really think they devote this time and energy just for nothing? Just for their health?

I'm not even saying she is going to be indicted. By the way, that wasn't even in my question.

My question was, and I repeat, what if the fallout from this investigation (not necessarily an indictment for her, but any other finding) was clearly jeopardizing her candidacy and our chances in November. Are there any remedies to that other than soldiering on and seeing how the final vote tally takes into account the fallout that I'm talking about? And that includes assuming that she and the Democratic Party want to do something about it?

How much more gentle and graceful can I be about the possibilities? Because if you think there is absolutely no chance that this will affect her candidacy in some way, then I think you are not being realistic. It is an FBI investigation. They will find something and make some recommendations. If they are neutral or positive, then they will be positive. If they are negative in any way, they could have an effect, and I'd like to know what one could do then.

[Thinkingabout]

16. Good answer.

[highprincipleswork]

18. Thinkingabout, I guess you don't want to do too much thinking about this question.

[Thinkingabout]

21. Okay, can you place high principles in your thoughts?

[highprincipleswork]

23. Oh, they are there everywhere. Looking for the truth. Trying to take care of eventualities, which is

called facing reality. Asking questions, honest ones. Being prepared for any eventuality I can be prepared for.

I even believe I've been respectful of all those who have chosen not to answer me and instead have called me and my question names and so forth. I have tried to be respectful at least.

All of that, and possibly more.

Yes, I believe high principles not only work, but work the best. I am not perfect. But calling people names, making rampant assumptions, and failing to face possible truths - those I know for sure are not high principles.

[chervilant]

30. Sad, really ...

I wonder if cognitive dissonance plays a role in "dismissing" the fact that Hi11ary is being investigated by the FBI.

SMDH

[pdsimdars]

34. If you say that then you know nothing about the issue.

[Lizzie Poppet]

47. "this stupidity is a republican sideshow"

Yes...because it totally makes sense that the FBI under a Democratic president's Justice Department would be carrying out a "Republican sideshow."

[highprincipleswork]

20. Perhaps I've found my own answer, as below.

Searching for an answer, I did find this posted, and it sounds right.

If a Candidate becomes unable to serve for whatever reason--ill health, accident, scandal-- he/she would step down, or be pressured to resign.

The successor would be picked by the Party. Both parties have machinery already in place for such situations.

For instance, when Sen. Tom Eagleton (D-MO) was nominated for Vice President on the Democratic ticket in 1972, it turned out he had been hospitalized for manic-depressive disease, and had had shock treatments.

Eagleton resigned. McGovern then picked Kennedy clan relative Sargent Shriver. The Democratic National Committeemen (two from each state, I believe) met in Washington and ratified his pick on behalf of the party.

Had it been McGovern as the Presidential nominee who resigned, then the party would pick his successor in much the same manner.

It wouldn't be quite cut and dried. Nominating a Presidential Candidate is politics, and despite the mechanism, their choice for the successor Presidential nominee would be wide-open.

They are not locked in by Party rules, or legal statue to replace a Presidential Nominee with the Vice Presidential nominee, though practical necessity might dictate that.

Now notice, there is nothing about Bernie in there whatsoever. So, that's my honest question, and what seems to be an honest answer.

[DCBob]

29. That sounds right.. basically it would be wide open.

The Party can pick anyone they want.

BTW, its more likely Hillary will get hit by lightning than being indicted for this stupid email server thing.

[highprincipleswork]

42. Does anyone understand that indictment is not the only possibility, nor the only one with negative

consequences?

That is behind the question.

I'd like to know why it seems so unlikely that a negative ruling could be had from the FBI? It doesn't seem unlikely to me at all. It seems to me there are a lot of things about the case that are troubling and that would get "an ordinary person" into a shitload of trouble.

The fact that Hillary is "not ordinary", and may not be treated directly with any penalty, does not mean this will not affect her candidacy negatively among the voting public.

But my questions were about none of this. Only about what would we or could we do. And for those who don't like to think about things, and need to attack anyone who wants to be prepared and do the right thing around this, I would only say that they are not taking proper care of themselves, their political party, or our chances in November. They must on some other mission. And if that mission is to elect Hillary at all costs, I think that is a misguided mission, not for the benefit of the Democratic Party or the American people.

[madokie]

31. I'll vote for hillary

but I'll tell you right up that nominating Hill will ensure we have a republiCON pResident the next four, possibly eight, years
That you can take to the bank!

[pdsimdars]

33. I've thought about that too. It does depend on WHEN they release their findings.

If it is before the convention, then Bernie is the obvious pick. But if they nominate Hillary and then the sh*t hits the fan, I too, had thought about it being wide open. UGH!

[mmonk]

24. There probably is already a contingency plan.

We're just not going to know what it is unless it has to be executed.

[Punkingal]

40. +1

[Tarc]

35. Here he comes!

[sufrommich]

38. Lol,I love that. nt

[highprincipleswork]

41. I guess the FBI is just a fairy institution, doing fairy things, spreading pixie dust around.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

37. These threads have a samey* feeling about them.

*I know it's not a word.

[highprincipleswork]

44. I would suggest that the sameness is in your reaction to an honest question that should be addressed

[Rosa Luxemburg]

43. If she does know that she has done wrong then

she should come clean now for the voters' sake and the party's sake. Quite frankly I was surprised that she kept a private server at home.

[highprincipleswork]

45. I'm surprised at a lot of what we hear went on. They don't pass the smell test, to me. But,

still, the first question was only what could the Democratic Party do after the fact to adjust, if in fact this issue did end up hurting our chances for retaining the presidency in November? What could we do even if Hillary agreed eventually there was a significant problem?

I found some answers.

[HassleCat]

51. The honest answer is to ignore it.

There is nothing else to do. Chances are slim that the email problem will become anything significant. You have to go with the odds, not the possibilities, and the odd are that Hillary can ride it out. Yes, we could have another Thomas Eagleton moment, but it's unlikely. If it happens, we just have to grit our teeth and keep going. The die is cast.

[highprincipleswork]

53. If I ever want to get advice on "ignoring" reality, I certainly know the group of people that I will

go to for advice.

Also, for a kind of resignation, and gritting one's teeth, and just keeping going, no matter what.

Me, I prefer to adjust to life, to try to come to grips with facts, to honor my emotions, to change course when it makes sense, and to try to live by the highest principles that I can attain at any one time.

Perhaps it's just a style difference.

[HassleCat]

56. But reality in the political world is not reality in the real world.

That's part of the problem, of course. Politicians can do whatever they can get away with, and it appears Clinton will get away with her very poor decision to use her private system for her government email. As far as principles, we abandoned those when we took the third way and chased after large corporate donors. This is not a problem for me to solve, except to decide how I will vote. This is a problem our party has created, and now they're past the point of no return. We already tried the honest alternative, and that failed, so there's not much more we can do. Our party seems intent on wrecking itself, and about all we can do is wait for the crash and pull bodies from the overturned cars.

[scscholar]

52. So you blame Eagleton instead of the medical cartel..

for what they did to him?

[highprincipleswork]

54. I knew when I wrote it that someone would infer what you did, but no, I am not directing indicting

Eagleton when I call it "the Eagleton news drama". I guess I could have said "the news drama surrounding Eagleton", but mostly I was just trying to use a shorthand for the whole drama surrounding the choice of Eagleton, when it turned out he had a history of emotional issues that were severe enough to get negative press attention and public reaction.

I don't blame Eagleton, although as I recall he did not tell the McGovern campaign about these issues when under consideration, and I don't think that is cool at all.

On the other hand, I think it's a crying shame that emotional issues are seen so negatively by so much of the American public, especially when so many people have them.

All of this seems pretty off the topic, however.

[BootinUp]

57. I think Gowdy should do another 12 hour hearing on TV. nt