HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » democrattotheend » Journal
Page: 1 2 Next »


Profile Information

Member since: Wed Jan 30, 2008, 03:33 PM
Number of posts: 10,157

About Me

I'm a lawyer representing workers and consumers and a longtime Democratic activist. Nothing I say on here, including any comments about legal topics, should be construed as legal advice or creating an attorney-client relationship.

Journal Archives

Honest question for Clinton supporters: why is the e-mail scandal not a big deal?

I want to state at the outset of this post that I am NOT hoping for Clinton to be indicted or further embroiled in scandal. Maybe some of my fellow Bernie supporters are, but I am not, and I know many others are not as well.

While I am not hoping for it to happen, I am concerned that it could happen. While I think indictment is somewhat unlikely, I am concerned about more damaging e-mails coming out that hurt her chances if she is the nominee. I also feel that her decision to use the private server and delete e-mails makes her appear less trustworthy because it creates the appearance that she had something to hide, whether or not she did.

The e-mail scandal was not the driving force behind my decision to support Bernie, but it is something I am concerned about, both in terms of her leadership style and her electability.

So I am curious, for those who are supporting her, why do you think the e-mail controversy is overblown? Why are you not concerned about indictment or a bigger scandal? Why should we not be worried about it hurting her in November if she is the nominee?

I really hope to elicit some honest answers here rather than starting a war. Like I have said many times, I do not hate Hillary, I do not want her to be indicted, and I will support her if she is the nominee. I just want to know what I should say if she is the nominee and an undecided voter expresses concern about the e-mails.
Posted by democrattotheend | Mon Mar 28, 2016, 08:59 PM (21 replies)

USA Today: A Look at Garland's Record

There is actually more to be excited about than I thought:

In 2013, he wrote the court's decision ordering the CIA to release information about drone strikes to a federal judge, in a challenge brought by the American Civil Liberties Union.

In 2008, he ruled that suspects could not be held as enemy combatants without verifiable evidence.

In 2004, he wrote the court's decision against the Environmental Protection Agency under President George W. Bush, which had tried to delay enforcement of ozone standards in the District of Columbia


He still would not be my first choice, but I don't think anyone can deny that he would be a noticeable improvement over the justice he was nominated to replace.
Posted by democrattotheend | Wed Mar 16, 2016, 12:05 PM (5 replies)

Have Orrin Hatch or any other Republicans commented on the Garland pick yet?

I would love to see how Hatch squirms his way out of this one.
Posted by democrattotheend | Wed Mar 16, 2016, 11:22 AM (1 replies)

NPR: Hillary wins FL, no call yet in NC

I thought NC would be called right away. Good news?
Posted by democrattotheend | Tue Mar 15, 2016, 08:03 PM (0 replies)

Exit Polls: Majority of Dems in IL, MO rated "honest and trustworthy" as most important trait

In North Carolina and Ohio the most important trait was "cares about people."

In Florida, the top candidate quality was someone who has the "right experience."

Democrats in all 5 states rated the economy and jobs as the most important issue.

A majority of Democrats in each state except Ohio said they want to see the next president continue President Obama's policies, rather than pursuing policies that are more or less liberal. (In Ohio, 48 percent said they want someone to continue Obama's policies, while 34 percent wanted more liberal policies and 12 percent wanted less liberal policies.)


Interpret from this what you will.
Posted by democrattotheend | Tue Mar 15, 2016, 05:55 PM (10 replies)

ABC Starts Leaking Little Tidbits from Exit Polls

Source: ABC News

5:15 p.m.

About two-thirds of Republican primary voters in all five states voting Tuesday support temporarily banning non-citizen Muslims from entering the United States, but majorities in all five say they want immigrants already in the United States illegally to be allowed a chance to stay.

Only about 4 in 10 Republican voters in each state want all immigrants in the country illegally to be deported.

5:07 p.m.

White voters make up the majority of Democratic voters in four of five states going to the polls Tuesday, but all five states included large enough percentages of minority voters to potentially affect the results.

According to early results of exit polls conducted for the Associates Press and television networks, black voters make up at least about one-fifth of the Democratic electorate in each states voting Tuesday, and in Florida, Illinois and North Carolina nearly 3 in 10 Democratic primary voters are black.

Read more: http://www.wtxl.com/news/the-latest-poll-democrats-satisfied-with-both-candidates/article_2e5e0b54-eaec-11e5-b46b-dba73d589711.html

Nothing too juicy yet. Republican voters are sickening.
Posted by democrattotheend | Tue Mar 15, 2016, 05:48 PM (13 replies)

Forget Favorite Candidates, Some People Voting Strategically

Kennedy Copeland is a Marco Rubio fan who voted for John Kasich in Ohio. Ann Croft is all in for Hillary Clinton but cast her ballot for Rubio in Virginia. Julia Price will back the Democratic nominee in November but voted for Kasich in Tennessee.

Are these voters confused? No, they're voting strategically in the year of Donald Trump in hopes of altering the outcome of the presidential race by casting ballots for someone other than their favorite candidate.

Democrat Croft, for example, figured Clinton didn't need her help to win Virginia. So she decided to vote instead against Trump in the Republican primary because some of her GOP friends were worried he would win the state. "I was feeling almost sort of dirty about doing it," she recalled. But then Croft talked to a friend who had done exactly the same thing, which made her feel better.

In other cases, Democrats are crossing over to do just the opposite: voting for Trump, on the thinking he'd be the weakest candidate to face the eventual Democratic nominee.

The whole article was about strategic voting within the Republican primary or by Democrats in the Republican primary. Oddly, I don't believe the article mentioned anyone crossing over to vote strategically in the Democratic primary, which is why I figured this was safe to post in GD.
Posted by democrattotheend | Tue Mar 15, 2016, 05:14 PM (4 replies)

Haven't the Democrats in Congress "used" Bernie for years?

For those who say Bernie is improperly using the Democratic Party to run for president, isn't it equally true by that logic that the Democrats in the House and then the Senate "used" him to help maintain the majority or effect the Democrat/Republican committee ratios? I don't remember anyone complaining about Bernie aligning himself with the Democrats then. So why is it suddenly a problem now that he is running for president?

I am quite sure that if Bernie doesn't get the nomination and his caucus alignment in the Senate determines who will be in the majority, Senate Democrats will be more than happy to "use" him to get the majority. So how is that any different?
Posted by democrattotheend | Tue Mar 15, 2016, 04:24 PM (11 replies)

Maybe Bernie should drop out...

and run as an independent/third party candidate in November. That's what many of you Clinton supporters seem to be suggesting he ought to do, because right now he is "hijacking" the Democratic primary and doesn't belong in it. Would you prefer that? Would you prefer that he run as an independent and at least 2% and maybe even 20% from Hillary in swing states in November?

If not, then I don't think you have any right to complain about him running in the Democratic primary. I wish more candidates to the left of most Democrats would do that instead of helping Republicans get elected and spinning their ridiculous mantra that there is no difference between the parties.

Edited to clarify: I am NOT advocating that Bernie actually mount a third party challenge. I think the results of that would be disastrous. I put this up to make the point that people complaining that he is "using" the Democratic Party should be glad that he is running to effect change from within instead of acting as a spoiler.
Posted by democrattotheend | Tue Mar 15, 2016, 04:15 PM (35 replies)
Go to Page: 1 2 Next »