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

democrattotheend

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

PURE SPECULATION: Could Bernie be staying in because he knows something we don't?

As the title indicates, this is pure speculation and not based on any kind of insider knowledge.

Many of the Hillary folks have said that Bernie sounds delusional when he talks about flipping the superdelegates. I happen to agree with them on that, as I believe it is highly unlikely that the establishment Democrats who make up the superdelegates would override the will of the primary voters to take the nomination away from someone like Hillary in favor of someone like Bernie (the other way around is a different story).

In fact, I am pretty confident the superdelegates would not do such a thing, UNLESS something happened that rendered Hillary completely unelectable. Something big enough that it would be reasonable for the supers to conclude that the voters would have chosen differently had they known (think Edwards scandal in 2008).

The other day, after the IG report came out, I was wondering if perhaps Bernie knows/knew something that we don't that plays a part in motivating him to take it all the way to the convention. At first, I thought that was unlikely, because Bernie is such an outsider and so much of the party establishment is in Hillary's corner that it's unlikely he would have an inside track on information.

But then I remembered that Tad Devine, one of Bernie's campaign managers, was one of Kerry's top people in 2004.

As the current Secretary of State, there is a decent chance Kerry knows whether the Clinton e-mail scandal is big enough to tank her candidacy, or whether there is some other scandal lurking that is totally unrelated to the e-mails. And unlike many in the party establishment, Kerry has no reason at this point to be beholden to the Clintons, and in fact he is one of the few Democrats I trust not to be given his history. But I would assume that he, like most Democrats and most sane Americans, does not want to see Trump become president.

So is it possible that he or someone who works with him could have sent some sort of a signal to the Bernie campaign, probably through Devine, that Bernie should stay in the race? Obviously, I am not talking about leaking any classified information - he wouldn't have to and I have no reason to believe he would. All he would have to do is say something innocuous if he ran into Devine at an event, something like "I hope Bernie stays in until the end."

I can't speak for all Bernie supporters, but I myself am not hoping for an indictment or any other scandal that will take down Hillary. I have accepted at this point that she will probably be the nominee. But if her actions at State with e-mail or anything else were more damning than is currently public, I sure as hell hope it comes out before it's too late. And if my theory somehow turned out to be true, I would be pretty darn grateful to Kerry for helping to prevent a President Trump.
Posted by democrattotheend | Sat May 28, 2016, 02:23 PM (120 replies)

Can we please stop accusing President Obama of bribery, at least without any evidence?

I posted this in General Discussion because it was about the 2008 primaries, not the 2016 primaries, but I was told to repost it here.

I have repeatedly seen people here repeat the claim, without anything to back it up, that the president offered Hillary Clinton the Secretary of State position prior to her endorsement as a quid pro quo.

As someone pointed out in another thread, to have done so would have been illegal:

18 U.S. Code 599 - Promise of appointment by candidate

Current through Pub. L. 114-38. (See Public Laws for the current Congress.)

Whoever, being a candidate, directly or indirectly promises or pledges the appointment, or the use of his influence or support for the appointment of any person to any public or private position or employment, for the purpose of procuring support in his candidacy shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than one year, or both; and if the violation was willful, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than two years, or both.
(June 25, 1948, ch. 645, 62 Stat. 721; Pub. L. 103322, title XXXIII,  330016(1)(H), (L), Sept. 13, 1994, 108 Stat. 2147.)



Hence, this meme that is casually repeated here with no evidence is actually a very serious accusation against a president who has given us no reason to believe he considers himself above the law. Not only has nobody ever been able to provide a link when I have asked for it, but it is clear from the articles that were published at the time of the appointment that her nomination was extensively negotiated after the election.

In fact, this article from November 2008 discusses her initial reluctance to take the position, citing concerns about access, personnel, and other issues: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/22/us/politics/22obama.html. I can't find the article, but I remember also reading that she went through a period after losing the nomination where she just wanted to be done with politics and spend time with Chelsea.

If you recall, Hillary made a trip to Chicago in late 2008 that she initially insisted was for personal reasons, but turned out to be to meet with Obama about the SOS position. If her nomination was something they had already agreed on 6 months earlier, why the secret negotiations in Chicago?

Given that it would have been a crime for Obama to use the Secretary of State position to get Hillary on board with his campaign, if there were any indication whatsoever that that had happened, wouldn't the Republicans have pounced on it?
Posted by democrattotheend | Thu May 26, 2016, 02:15 PM (14 replies)

What if John Edwards had been the nominee in 2008?

If you recall, his scandal blew up and he eventually admitted to it in June 2008, not long after Obama clinched the nomination. What if Edwards had been the one who had just clinched the nomination? Would we have had to go ahead with nominating him because it would be "undemocratic" to do otherwise?

I am not saying it has gotten to that point with Hillary at this time, but if she is indicted or more damning information is released that would seriously compromise her chances of getting elected, then that is when I think it's legit for the superdelegates to nominate Bernie even if Hillary has more votes. In my opinion, the superdelegates should only give the nomination to someone who did not win the highest number of pledged delegates if there is a scandal that is so big that it's reasonable to say the majority of primary voters would have voted differently had they known.

I am not hoping that happens, but I think the stuff that has come out recently is enough that I am glad Bernie is still in the race and fighting for every delegate in case we need a backup candidate, because it would be a lot more undemocratic to nominate someone who never even ran in the primaries, like in 1968.
Posted by democrattotheend | Thu May 26, 2016, 01:11 PM (12 replies)

Can we please stop accusing President Obama of bribery, at least without any evidence?

I have repeatedly seen people here repeat the claim, without anything to back it up, that the president offered Hillary Clinton the Secretary of State position prior to her endorsement as a quid pro quo.

As someone pointed out in another thread, to have done so would have been illegal:
18 U.S. Code 599 - Promise of appointment by candidate

Current through Pub. L. 114-38. (See Public Laws for the current Congress.)

Whoever, being a candidate, directly or indirectly promises or pledges the appointment, or the use of his influence or support for the appointment of any person to any public or private position or employment, for the purpose of procuring support in his candidacy shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than one year, or both; and if the violation was willful, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than two years, or both.
(June 25, 1948, ch. 645, 62 Stat. 721; Pub. L. 103322, title XXXIII,  330016(1)(H), (L), Sept. 13, 1994, 108 Stat. 2147.)


Hence, this meme that is casually repeated here with no evidence is actually a very serious accusation against a president who has given us no reason to believe he considers himself above the law. Not only has nobody ever been able to provide a link when I have asked for it, but it is clear from the articles that were published at the time of the appointment that her nomination was extensively negotiated after the election.

In fact, this article from November 2008 discusses her initial reluctance to take the position, citing concerns about access, personnel, and other issues: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/22/us/politics/22obama.html. I can't find the article, but I remember also reading that she went through a period after losing the nomination where she just wanted to be done with politics and spend time with Chelsea.

If you recall, Hillary made a trip to Chicago in late 2008 that she initially insisted was for personal reasons, but turned out to be to meet with Obama about the SOS position. If her nomination was something they had already agreed on 6 months earlier, why the secret negotiations in Chicago?

Given that it would have been a crime for Obama to use the Secretary of State position to get Hillary on board with his campaign, if there were any indication whatsoever that that had happened, wouldn't the Republicans have pounced on it?
Posted by democrattotheend | Thu May 26, 2016, 12:43 PM (24 replies)

MSNBC just called Indiana for Bernie

Per screenshot on twitter...https://twitter.com/suzetteforsyth/status/727666901367848961

Posted by democrattotheend | Tue May 3, 2016, 09:13 PM (0 replies)
Go to Page: 1