Hillary is the focus of an FBI criminal investigation and will be brought in for questioning in the

[berniepdx420]

next few weeks if not sooner

[grossproffit]

1. Okay.

[berniepdx420]

35. Wrong.. a proud Progressive and life long Democrate..

[Gothmog]

53. You are wrong again

This is what is being posted on Freerepublic

[CoffeeCat]

77. Democrats just happened to be concerned

that one of their DEMOCRATIC primary candidates is under FBI investigation for sending all of her State Department email on a homebrew, unsecured email server that President Obama didn't know about.

What she did is unprecedented. No public official has ever set up a server in their basement. Brian Pagliano her IT guy who set up the server has been granted immunity by the FBI.

Tell me the part again, about how this should remain only a right-wing concern!

You'd have to be stupid to not pay attention to this bombshell that is happening in our own party.

Who gives two shits what the Republicans think? It's our party that will be most affected by this!

[840high]

127. You go there often?

[Gothmog]

134. No-I do not have to because the Sanders supporters are posting this crap on DU

I still love the Malkin material posted on DU by a sanders supporters with the claim that the analysis of a non-lawyer trump supporter who could not get into law school was the definitive work of the issue of the e-mails. http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1251&pid=1625920j It is evidently okay to post Freeper materain on DU if such material attacks Hillary Clinton

[FreakinDJ]

51. Obviously thats why Hillary "Lawyered Up" with a Criminal Defense Attorney

[northernsouthern]

2. I am not a HRC fan.

But seems to be a spam post with no links or details. Plus no reason to think much of it with no new deets.

[Myrina]

3. +1

nt

[berniepdx420]

4. The details are well known.. just think it's an important point to remember when she is

running to be the President. Your threshold for spam is quite low... not all OP's are breaking news and require links. Your assertion that there is no reason to think much of it seems quite unfortunate since she is running to be the damn President.. amazing

[northernsouthern]

6. We are better than that.

All a certain group has done all day is attack with smears and conspiracies all day, The number of times cr@p about the Pope and 1040s have come up boggles the mind. I liked the fact we hold back on this, it gives us the high ground, it makes me proud of us, and it inspires me to make gifs and such to fight for our guy. Let the other team lose their souls, we have no need of their corruption to win. If something happens with the FBI, it happens.

[berniepdx420]

8. You are missing the point... SHE IS CURRENTLY UNDER AN FBI CRIMINAL INVESTIGATION

key words.. currently and criminal

[northernsouthern]

11. That is my point.

Posting this is just pointless since it is not any thing new. You are just spamming a known issue. It could have merit, many things point to a fact that she has broken rules, done some bad things, Obama tossed her under the bus a little, but I am just saying until there is something new let it be. Reposting old stories is the HRC forte not our.

[berniepdx420]

12. Dude move on... just because you don't find this important to post doesn't mean I and many

other people don't find it incredibly important that she is currently under an FBI criminal investigation..again... amazing

[northernsouthern]

14. Post what you want.

But you are making our party look as bad as theirs if you just spam stories with nothing new to them. That kind of seems a bit bot-ish.

[berniepdx420]

15. Making our party look bad.. you are joking... are you a hrc fan posing as a bernie fan.. it's quite

important to Progressive Democrats that we do not nominate someone who is currently under an FBI criminal investigation.. I couldn't get a job at McDonalds if I were under an FBI criminal investigation... and your shading me for stating to the DU readers that Hillary is under an FBI criminal Investigation...

just move on out of this thread and don't click on it next time

[northernsouthern]

17. Dude, you are making yourself look bad.

Perhaps you should read my other responses on this thread before you go all foil hat on me... or check out my other threads...
http://www.democraticunderground.com/12511750271

Or check out my two hidden threads on my transparency page.

If you have an issue, stop responding to me.

[berniepdx420]

18. The point I am making is not complicated.. you are trying to keep me from sharing information

that I find very important ... I don't appreciate it.. and asked nicely that you do not click on the Thread anymore.

[northernsouthern]

19. Again, this is not new information.

If you want to spam a known issue, then perhaps title it, nothing new, but I figured for some reason the people on this forum may have forgotten that HRC was being investigated and I felt like bringing it up again. You posted it like you knew, unless you have a source saying for sure it will be out in a week then there was no point. Whatever you have the freedom to post waht you like, but you make us look bad when you post it this way.

[pdsimdars]

68. You made your only point the first comment. . .

Like he said, if you don't agree . . .well, don't agree, but it doesn't look "bad" for the party when someone expresses a concern like this. It's called "vetting", get used to it.

[northernsouthern]

70. I did stop posting, but got more replies.

I do not like spam attacks with no basis, this was not a new attack, it was not a question, it was presented as news, but was not. That is why I was annoyed. As I have said.

[NowSam]

59. The candidate is the one

making the party look bad.

[northernsouthern]

63. I won't argue with that.

I just get paranoid of empty posts lacking sources or more. I could see Wolf on here trying to stir something up for a good news story now that he knows it can get viewers.

[pdsimdars]

69. You are correct. And the way to stop making the party look bad is for her to drop out now.

For the good of the party.

[grasswire]

74. baloney

Democrats need to be thinking long and hard about what is going to happen from now through November.

The FBI interview coming up at any day.

The Republicans plan to release their final Benghazi report about July 18 (during the GOP convention)

Two likely contested and chaotic conventions.

The possibility of an indictment of Clinton. Perhaps even a Watergate type situation if the FBI recommends charging her but Obama's Attorney General will not.

If Hillary is the nominee, she will be attacked as never before and many millions of people will turn out to vote AGAINST her. Plus she cannot, on her own, generate enthusiasm that turns into GOTV among progressives, young people, and independents.

If Hillary should be elected, Republicans will have impeachment papers filed on Inauguration Day, and there will be hell for us all as we are dragged yet again through a Clinton psychodrama.

Be prepared.

[mcar]

60. NO SHE IS NOT

[berniepdx420]

61. sorry to inform you of your mistake... your allegiance is blinding

[CorkySt.Clair]

29. I've read some pretty nasty comments here

By Berners. So, actually no you are in fact not better than that.

[pdsimdars]

99. I guess you only see what you want to see. How convenient for you.

Now , go in peace, please.

[CorkySt.Clair]

100. Are you saying Berners haven't written nasty posts?

[brush]

23. What's your source for this "information"?

[still_one]

86. Then it is just flame bait, nothing more

[berniepdx420]

89. some light reading for you so that you can be informed...

http://time.com/4276988/jim-comey-hillary-clinton/

https://law.lclark.edu/live/news/5497-what-are-the-differences-between-the-civil-and

http://lawnewz.com/uncategorized/the-longtime-clinton-attorney-now-representing-hillary-in-fbis-criminal-probe/

[still_one]

108. and where does it say she will be brought in for an interview in the next few weeks

As I said, flame bait

[grasswire]

112. please get your head out of the sand

Enlighten yourself.

[still_one]

125. perhaps you should

[berniepdx420]

113. .

head..sand..

[still_one]

126. you like it when people make fun of other people don't you? We will see how much you are laughing

after Tuesday

[Jitter65]

32. Plus it is not a criminal investigation. Period! nt

[IdaBriggs]

50. Out of curiosity, just what do you think FBI agents do for a living?

Computer consulting? Interior decorating? Bake sales?

Because what they ACTUALLY DO is INVESTIGATE CRIMES.

And they've already given Hillary's tech guy "Immunity from Prosecution" so just whose crimes do you think they are investigating?

[grasswire]

75. you are wrong.

Tell it to the FBI.

[840high]

130. Yes it is.

[still_one]

84. I gave one response to the OP. Please provide a link. Similar to what you are asking

[jfern]

5. I don't disagree, but this OP could use more details.

[berniepdx420]

7. here ya go..as if the fact of her facing indictment isn't enough... incredible...

FRIDAY, APR 15, 2016 01:12 PM PDT
The equation for a Hillary defeat is adding up: Her FBI probe plus Bernie’s huge gains in national polls should wake up Sanders skeptics
Bernie Sanders is almost tied nationally and ahead of Clinton in three Democratic primary polls
H. A. GOODMAN

http://www.salon.com/2016/04/15/the_equation_for_a_hillary_defeat_is_adding_up_her_fbi_probe_plus_bernies_huge_gains_in_national_polls_should_wake_up_sanders_skeptics/

[BreakfastClub]

9. There's no evidence of anything in that editorial, which was written by a Bernie supporter. nt

[berniepdx420]

10. oh my goodness... She is currently I repeat CURRENTLY under an FBI criminal I repeat criminal

Investigation... the FBI ... not the Congress... wake up man

[rjsquirrel]

21. Spit that word out

Like it means something -- "criminal."

It means nothing at all without an indictment. Almost no legal expert thinks she did anything "criminal" here. Ergo, you're just jerking of.

She's not a criminal and it's not a
"Criminal investigation" as opposed to some other kind of "investigation." It's just investigation. There is no evidence of any criminality in the public record anyway.


You people are playing ugly because you're losing.


And it's costing you undecided voters. I was one.
In New York. Bernie Bro screaming and misogyny convinced me to support Hillary. Congratulations.

[berniepdx420]

30. You could not be more wrong.. Criminal does mean something in our justice system. It is a criminal

investigation by the FBI. She just hired a Criminal Defense attorney.. head.. sand

What are the differences between the civil and criminal justice system?

https://law.lclark.edu/live/news/5497-what-are-the-differences-between-the-civil-and

[rjsquirrel]

49. It will mean something

when and if she is charged with a criminal offense.

But you folks just so enjoy saying "criminal" next to her name. Reminds me of another party, I can't think of their name just now.

She had a server in her house. You act like she robbed a bank. There will be no criminal charges. I am quite sure of it, along with virtually every legal expert with any experience in this area of law.

Your sneering vituperative misogynystic hatred of her is your blind spot. It will cost your candidate this election. Millions more voters have already decided so.

[BillZBubb]

62. And you folks want to dismiss something very serious as no big deal.

The FBI has prima facie evidence that a crime or crimes were committed. That's what they are investigating. The fact that they are doing in person interviews implies that they have found, in the emails, what appears to be solid proof. The interviews will be held to either confirm or refute that conclusion.

You are sure. You shouldn't be. Until the FBI announces their recommendations, we are all in the dark including the many experts your side has dredged up.

I'd guess the likelihood of an indictment is at most 1 in 4. That is not low enough to ignore. The fact that Hillary now has a criminal defense attorney on the case has upped the odds against her.

[libdem4life]

31. So you didn't explore the platforms or the major positions of the candidates?

That's pretty amazing.

[rjsquirrel]

48. Of course I did

No, I just vote based on my gut feeling.

Keep thinking that.

Ideology without a practical governance strategy is not policy.

[pdsimdars]

71. Bologna. You were not "undecided". You are clearly a Hill-bot. That whole meme is old.

And you need to do some actual research. It is only the pro-Hillary talking heads who say there is nothing to see here. Professionals in the intelligence field are freaked out by what she did. This included former Attorney Generals, the head of the DIA (defense department equivalent of CIA) to name a couple off the top of my head.
I listen to all sources even if they may be on the right. I don't listen to their opinions, but when they talk facts, I listen. And most of the information is coming from the right because the left just wants to blow smoke to cloud the issue for one of their own. But you can't argue with the facts.

[northernsouthern]

13. Look I am not in favor of this guy's email...

But be careful on ignoring what is known. She has done some things that are not by the book ok, it wasn't just using a personal email, it was that combined with a server, along with attempts to get around protocol for convince, and deleting a huge number of emails...she did break some rules, but it could just be minor things. So all sides should hold off until we know some facts.

[berniepdx420]

16. NO! Don't hold off.. this primary season is almost over... do we want to nominate

someone who could be indicted... do you just want to hand the Presidency to Trump or Cruz.. it is immensely important that we let everyone know she is the focus of a current FBI criminal investigation... that in itself is disqualifying to be our nominee

[pdsimdars]

78. No, she did ALL her work as SoS on a personal, UNENCRIPTED server.

In her job as SoS she HAD to deal with Classified information, that's what you do at that level. And she did it all out in public from her personal server.

People who aren't HILLARY, lose their jobs and careers for leaving only ONE classified message unprotected. She did it her whole career as SoS.

And those 22 messages they talk about, were at the top level of the TOP SECRET classification of security.

This is important stuff and she just casually ignored what they told her and what she signed in her oath, and did whatever she wanted for "convenience".

Oh, nothing to see here, they're just picking on her. . .. blah, blah, blah.

[northernsouthern]

95. I just want to wait for some details to come out more than I know.

From waht I heard there are issues, but the think is unless they are huge, all that means is we lose the primaries since many are shielded about Hillary from the constant republican fishing expeditions. They have made many fans numb to actual facts.

[pdsimdars]

103. Go do some reasearch, there's a thing called "google" and also "youtube"

LOADS of information there and what you see is that partisan talking heads say everything is good but every person who is in the intelligence field says it is outrageous.

Do some research instead of coming here and pretending to have an informed opinion so that you can preach to others what they should and should not be concerned with when you don't know anything about it.

[northernsouthern]

107. Dude...

Your battle is not here. I did it, that is why I was quoting it. My issue is spam posts presented as news, with out any. The OP does not know the information for sure, the anytime meme has been on for these last few months. I do not condone it when the HRC camp does it and I am not a hypocrite so I call out our own crew too. It is my right, this is general. Perhaps you should read my posts and my ones that were hidden before you accuse me of something.

[grasswire]

114. here

A group of very knowledgeable people is working on the Clinton Scandal Timeline. It is now up to nearly 162 pages of documentation and media coverage. Here's a link to the work group, where you will find information and links enough to satisfy your thirst for knowledge.


http://www.democraticunderground.com/1280158157

[northernsouthern]

121. See, that is all a guy wants in his threads...

Some links! Thank you.

(but that still does not change the OP is not citing news)

[pdsimdars]

120. And Dude . . . like I said, the facts are out there, you don't need to "wait" for them

go and look at them.

And again, Dude, like I said, you made your point that you don't like empty threads, probably 4 or 5 times now. I got it the first time.

And yet, despite the MANY people who think this is an important topic for consideration and want to talk about it, you can't let them decide for themselves if THEY want to talk about it.

I would think that if YOU are only one voice or maybe one of only a few who DON'T want to discuss it, and all these other people do, why don't you go to another OP and discuss what YOU think is important and let US discuss what WE think is important and stop trying to tell us what is important and what is not?

Oh, and this is not the "breaking NEWS" thread, it's the primaries DISCUSSION thread. If you want news, maybe you should to there so you would be happier.

I don't need to read all your posts, I see what you are doing right here, right now.

[delrem]

22. I agree with those who say you are spamming.

Lay off.

[berniepdx420]

25. No thanks... I will not lay off.. To me it is very important. Thank you though.

[grasswire]

81. I will stand with you, berniepdx420

We are facing a dangerous moment, potentially. This summer is going to determine whether we are a nation of laws, or a nation of justice for SOME.

And if the FBI reports evidence to indict but Obama's Attorney General will not do so, then we are off to the races in a Watergate type situation. The FBI is already angry at Obama for inserting himself into the narrative.

[berniepdx420]

87. .

[pdsimdars]

91. Me too. Those who say, "Nothing to see here" are totally wrong and we need to make this

part of the conversation about who we should have as our nominee.

[grasswire]

93. yes

Bernie can't.

But we can.

Forget the stuff about the transcripts. She's using them to chum us all. Watch her smirk when people obsess over the transcripts.

The real corruption lies in the server scandal and in the money laundering through the Foundation.

[pdsimdars]

105. Oh, man, you have it exactly like I call it too.

Unbelievable.

[grasswire]

109. It's very Rove.

She LUVS it when people focus on the transcripts.

I say we urge people to drop that.

Focus on the Foundation and the Canadian "charity".

Have you seen the working group thread developing a Clinton Scandal timeline over in the Bernie forum?

[grasswire]

111. link

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1280158157

[840high]

132. +1

[CompanyFirstSergeant]

24. Several members of my family...

....including myself....

....have been investigated for security clearances.

Very routine, actually, it's required for quite a number of military jobs.

Being under investigation for improper handling of classified information would have been cause for disqualification.

[berniepdx420]

26. Right.. and I am getting blow back for mentioning it about the person we are about to nominate for

the President. I just don't understand the kid gloves being used here. This is not the highly partisan Congress but a Criminal FBI investigation..

[pdsimdars]

92. This is the understanding you get from EVEYRONE who knows about these things

It is only the partisan talking heads who are saying it's no big deal.

[polichick]

28. She's lawyered up and ready to go!

[Renew Deal]

33. Making stuff up again?

[berniepdx420]

36. The ol wise Renew Deal.. what is it I am making up my friend. ..?

[libdem4life]

34. A lawyered up candidate running for president

Along with her impeached and wandering ex- president hubby.

Being the first female president will pale along side the other "firsts".

[grasswire]

90. boggles the mind, doesn't it?

...and all so unnecessary.

[libdem4life]

96. Yep.

[hill2016]

37. if she were she would have received a target letter.

any news of that?

[berniepdx420]

38. She is most definitely the target of an FBI Criminal Investigation..

http://time.com/4276988/jim-comey-hillary-clinton/

[WhiteTara]

46. here's the takeaway

As they near the end of the investigation, the agents are preparing to interview several of Clinton’s closest aides, and perhaps the candidate herself, according to the sources

[RandySF]

39. Is there a link?

Or did you pull this out of your ass?

[berniepdx420]

40. oh the hit squad is up and running for the day... read through the thread and I just Posted a new

OP with plenty for you to read and obfuscate.

[RandySF]

41. Just as I thought

Your ass.

[berniepdx420]

42. Did you read the thread...?? Did you read the long article in time magazine... intellectual

integrity .. you should research that..

[grasswire]

129. that's today's tactic

must have been a blast FAX from HQ today.

"Ask for links constantly."

[WhiteTara]

43. Link?

[berniepdx420]

44. read the Thread..

[WhiteTara]

45. Links belong in the OP. Thanks

[berniepdx420]

52. Not every OP is breaking news.. I know you want this info buried.. but I and many others find it

incredibly important..

Do you prefer a pres trump or a prez cruz.. if she is indicted.. this is a game I am unwilling to play

[WhiteTara]

64. All OPs, unless original writing need the link in the first page

and this is not LBN, the article is from March 31 and was posted and discussed a great deal, when it first appeared. Thanks

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

47. But, she won't tell them anything unless they release the transcipts of interviews with the Mafia.

[Lil Missy]

54. Your concern is noted.

[berniepdx420]

55. So Pres Trump or Pres Cruz if she is indicted.. your preference ? oh you are sleeping at the wheel

thanks for that...

[Lil Missy]

57. your concern is again, noted

[Gothmog]

56. DOJ: No, We Weren't Asked To Launch A Criminal Probe Into Clinton's Emails

The original report from the NYT on which this story was based was changed and this thread is based on a false and misleading premise or claim. The DOJ has confirmed that there is no criminal probe into the Clinton e-mails http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/doj-no-hillary-clinton-criminal-inquiry

The U.S. Justice Department said Friday that, contrary to media reports, it did not receive a request to open a criminal investigation into how sensitive information was handled in Hillary Clinton's private emails.

The New York Times reported Thursday that two inspectors general asked the Justice Department "to open a criminal investigation into whether sensitive government information was mishandled in connection with the personal email account Hillary Rodham Clinton used as secretary of state." The language of that report originally cast Clinton as a target of the requested probe, but notably was changed after Times reporters received complaints from Clinton's presidential campaign.

The agency now says that it what it received was "not a criminal referral," but a request related to the potential compromise of classified information, according to Washington Post report Sari Horowitz:

Sari Horwitz ✔@SariHorwitz
The Department of Justice now correcting their earlier statement & saying the referral regarding Clinton emails was not a criminal inquiry.

Sari HorwitzVerified account
?@SariHorwitz
Correct from DOJ ept has received a referral related to the potential compromise of classified information. It is not a criminal referral.”

Rep. Elijah Cummings (D-MD), the top Democrat on the select House committee investigating the Benghazi attacks, also rejected the notion that the inspectors general of the State Department and intelligence agencies asked for a criminal probe into Clinton's email account

.

[farleftlib]

58. Her fans ignore this at her peril

She's done some illegal and unethical things and they will come out. Primarily jeopardizing national security so she could use her SOS position to funnel money into the Clinton Foundation. How low!

K & R

[Gothmog]

65. There is no criminal investigation

The claim that there is a criminal referral here is really sad and wrong. http://mediamatters.org/research/2015/08/12/myths-and-facts-on-hillary-clintons-email-and-r/204913

Reuters: Inspector General Referral Is Not Criminal. Reuters reported on July 24 that there was "no criminal referral over the Clinton emails":

The Justice Department said Friday it has received a request to examine the handling of classified information related to the private emails from Hillary Clinton during her time as secretary of state, but it is not a criminal referral. [Reuters, 7/24/15]

AP: U.S. Official Said That Request Of DOJ "Doesn't Suggest Wrongdoing By Clinton Herself." The Associated Press quoted an anonymous U.S. official who noted that the referral did not implicate Clinton in any wrongdoing:

The New York Times first reported the referral. The Clinton campaign said Friday that she "followed appropriate practices in dealing with classified materials." Spokesman Nick Merrill said emails deemed classified by the administration were done so after the fact, not when they were sent.

One U.S. official said it was unclear whether classified information was mishandled and the referral doesn't suggest wrongdoing by Clinton herself. [Associated Press, 7/24/15]

Wash. Post: Officials Say Clinton "Is Not A Target" Of FBI Probe. The Washington Post reported that government officials said Clinton is "not a target" of the FBI's investigation:

Hillary Rodham Clinton's attorney has agreed to provide the FBI with the private server that housed her e-mail during her four years as secretary of state, Clinton's presidential campaign said Tuesday.
..

The inquiry by the FBI is considered preliminary and appears to be focused on ensuring the proper handling of classified material. Officials have said that Clinton, the Democratic presidential front-runner, is not a target.

The FBI's efforts have included contacting the Denver-based technology firm that helped manage the Clintons' unusual private ­e-mail system. [The Washington Post, 8/11/15]

The GOP and the Conservatives are so scared of Hillary Clinton that they are making crap up and hoping that their lies will hurt Clinton.

Facts here do not support the GOP silly claims

[deathrind]

66. Yep...

But it is just a sideshow distraction according to some...nothing serious...it only the FBI.

[senz]

67. NPR briefly mentioned this subject this morning --

unfortunately, I hadn't fully woken up, but I was surprised to hear it, since corporate-owed NPR is very pro-Hillary. There had been some movement on the investigation, not quite an indictment, but some legal move advancing it. Sorry I can't give more.

It must be out there on other news sources ...

[pdsimdars]

72. There are some who say she should not go, but then that would be very bad optics.

[grasswire]

88. wow

Not go to the interview with the FBI?

She could go in shackles, then.

[Buzz Clik]

73. "Hey! Look over there! No, dammit, not at the Vatican fiasco, at this shiny thing here!"

[berniepdx420]

76. oh by shiny thing..you mean an FBI Criminal Investigation, Questioning and a possible Indictment...

oh and hey Bernie was invited to a Global Conference on Social & Political Injustices.. where he had a 5 min face to face with the pope..

See we can hold two or more thoughts in our heads.. not too difficult.. give it a try

[Buzz Clik]

83. ...

[randome]

79. So you know she's the focus because...

[hr][font color="blue"][center]I'm always right. When I'm wrong I admit it.
So then I'm right about being wrong.[/center][/font][hr]

[berniepdx420]

82. um.. yes.. she was the SOS and it was her bathroom that she kept her non secure server in..

http://time.com/4276988/jim-comey-hillary-clinton/

[randome]

98. So you're making this up, then, since the DOJ says she is NOT the focus of an investigation.

Worse, you're starting multiple threads on the same subject. How many times do you need to say 'Clinton will be indicted' before your wish comes true? It must be more than it is to make Beetlejuice appear.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]I'm always right. When I'm wrong I admit it.
So then I'm right about being wrong.[/center][/font][hr]

[grasswire]

97. you know it too

...and you're too smart to deny it.

[still_one]

80. please provide link

[ViseGrip]

85. And they think Bernie's optics are bad.....pandering to the Pope, etc.

[bigtree]

94. you are really bad at this

...I've seen enough stupid.

[berniepdx420]

101. Thanks so much bigtree.. if we don't deal with this now then say hello to pres crus or pres trump..

and they will sure chop down a ton of big tree's .. wake up ..don't let your allegiance blind you to the facts

[Juicy_Bellows]

102. +1 KICK

As a fellow Oregonian, Bernie supporter and fan of the 'bis, I salute your efforts!

[berniepdx420]

115. Thanks Juicy..are you in Ptown ?

[Juicy_Bellows]

117. I am - Go Blazers!

[berniepdx420]

119. me too.. go Blazies.. when's the first playoff game.. kinda lost track last few days

[Juicy_Bellows]

122. Tomorrow night versus the clips. 7:30 should be on Channel 8 locally or any pub in town.

Ganjacon is tomorrow too, not sure if you're interested but you seem like you might be!

[berniepdx420]

124. .

interested indeed...

[Waiting For Everyman]

104. There's no way that ends without a train wreck.

At the very, very, very least it'll be a humongous public scandal.

Bernie has been overly fair enough not to even mention it, and for that she shows her gratitude by accusing him of smears and negative attacks. That tells you all about who she is, right there.

[pdsimdars]

106. Another thing I remembered . . . I saw a video of the various Republican candidates talking about it

If I was a Hillary supporter, I'd want to get this all aired out among ourselves, you should hear how THEY talk about it.

[grasswire]

116. yesterday the head of the RNC..

..was talking on television about how happy they will be to run against Hillary because of her weakened status.

[pdsimdars]

123. Exactly!!!

[pdsimdars]

110. For more information, just go to youtube and search for Hillary Email Scandal

There are many videos that are very good. You may not like that it is Fox who did most of them, but you can at least get the information from them because the MSM is not touching this. You may not like the hosts on Fox, I don't either, but they do have former Attorney Generals on and people like that and they can tell you details about it. You don't have to listen to their conclusions or opinions, but they do present the facts that have come out.

[grasswire]

118. or go to our own working thread on DU

...where we are gathering documentation and media coverage into one long document. http://www.democraticunderground.com/1280158157

[pdsimdars]

131. thanks

[sadoldgirl]

128. No, she will probably not indicted, but

if the FBI report states: Insufficient Evidence, it

will be bad enough, because perceptions of

illegal doings will succeed in her losing the GE.

[840high]

133. There will be many leaks on this. Won't look

good for her.

[Gothmog]

135. The premise of the OP is that Sanders will not be the nominee unless their is an indictment

That premise is wrong but I am happy that the Sanders people are beginning to realize that the math is against Sanders.

[Gothmog]

136. Clinton emails continue to be non-scandal, disappointing Republicans

This non-scandal is also disappointing sad Sanders supporters who have wised up and know that Sanders will not be the nominee absent an indictment https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/plum-line/wp/2016/03/04/clinton-emails-continue-to-be-non-scandal-disappointing-republicans/

Now let’s be honest. When this story broke, Republicans were desperately hoping that we would learn that some criminal wrongdoing or catastrophic security breach had taken place, so they could then use that against Clinton in her run for the White House. But that turns out not to be the case. So the next best thing from their perspective is that there’s some vaguely-defined “scandal” that the public doesn’t really understand, but that voters will hold against her if you just repeat the words “Clinton email scandal” often enough.

They may have gotten that. I’ve certainly seen plenty of voters quoted in press accounts saying some version of, “I don’t trust Clinton, ’cause you know, that email thing.” I’m sure 99 percent of them couldn’t tell you what they think Clinton actually did that’s so awful, but they know that there was something about emails, and it was, like, a scandal, right?

In recent weeks, I’ve had a couple of liberal friends and relatives ask me, with something approaching panic, “I just heard that Clinton is about to be indicted. Is that true?!?” The answer is no, but they heard that because it’s something conservatives say constantly. Tune to to talk radio or surf through conservative web sites, and before long you’ll hear someone say that the Clinton indictment is coming any day now. Donald Trump, with his characteristically tenuous relationship to reality, frequently says that she’s about to be indicted or that she won’t be permitted to run for president because she’ll be on trial. It hasn’t happened and it won’t happen, but that isn’t going to stop them from saying it.

Finally, there’s a phrase you should watch out for when you see this issue discussed: “Drip, drip, drip.” Sometimes it’ll be a Republican partisan using it, but more often it will be some pundit explaining why the issue is important. What “drip, drip drip” means is that despite the fact that there was no crime and no security breach, the media will keep discussing the story as the investigations continue, and that will cause political difficulty for Clinton. “Drip, drip, drip” is this controversy’s version of, “it’s out there,” meaning, “there isn’t anything scandalous about the substance of this matter, but here’s how we’ll justify talking about it as though it actually were something scandalous.”

I don’t say that to justify Clinton’s original decision to set up the private server. She shouldn’t have done that, not only because it was against department policy, but also because she should have been extra careful, knowing her history, to make sure she minded her Ps and Qs on everything like this. She should have known that once she started running for president there were going to be FOIA requests and lawsuits and investigations of everything she did as Secretary of State. So yes, that was an error in judgment. But it wasn’t a crime — and it appears that no bad consequences for the country came of it — so we shouldn’t treat it like it was.