HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Retired » Retired Forums » 2016 Postmortem (Forum) » National security law exp...

Sat Jan 30, 2016, 11:18 AM

National security law expert on Clinton email issue: "not uncommon" and legal charges very unlikely.

From Christian Science Monitor..

Stephen Vladeck, an American University law professor and national security law expert, said it would be a stretch, based on what's now known, to think Clinton could be charged under any existing statute for her behavior.

"This is an area where the government tends not to test the margins too often," Vladeck said.

It's not uncommon for workers with access to classified material to mishandle it, and by far the bulk of those cases don't attract the attention of federal prosecutors.


http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Justice/2016/0130/Were-Clinton-top-secret-emails-illegal-What-history-tells-us-about-such-cases

As I said many times before this is much ado about nothing. I know the Bernie supporters and the RWingers would love this to be a bigger story but it simply is not.

78 replies, 4032 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 78 replies Author Time Post
Reply National security law expert on Clinton email issue: "not uncommon" and legal charges very unlikely. (Original post)
DCBob Jan 2016 OP
DemocratSinceBirth Jan 2016 #1
DCBob Jan 2016 #2
DemocratSinceBirth Jan 2016 #6
randys1 Jan 2016 #55
Ferd Berfel Jan 2016 #59
Motown_Johnny Jan 2016 #3
DCBob Jan 2016 #5
Motown_Johnny Jan 2016 #12
DCBob Jan 2016 #15
Motown_Johnny Jan 2016 #17
DCBob Jan 2016 #23
Motown_Johnny Jan 2016 #30
DCBob Jan 2016 #37
Motown_Johnny Jan 2016 #38
DCBob Jan 2016 #41
Motown_Johnny Jan 2016 #66
DCBob Jan 2016 #71
Motown_Johnny Jan 2016 #73
DCBob Jan 2016 #74
Motown_Johnny Jan 2016 #75
DCBob Jan 2016 #77
Scootaloo Jan 2016 #61
Depaysement Jan 2016 #53
enid602 Jan 2016 #76
oasis Jan 2016 #16
Motown_Johnny Jan 2016 #67
oasis Jan 2016 #68
mmonk Jan 2016 #4
DCBob Jan 2016 #8
mmonk Jan 2016 #18
awake Jan 2016 #24
mmonk Jan 2016 #39
Gregorian Jan 2016 #7
EndElectoral Jan 2016 #9
DCBob Jan 2016 #13
KeepItReal Jan 2016 #27
DCBob Jan 2016 #35
KeepItReal Jan 2016 #45
DCBob Jan 2016 #46
TwilightGardener Jan 2016 #10
VulgarPoet Jan 2016 #33
MineralMan Jan 2016 #11
jonno99 Jan 2016 #57
left-of-center2012 Jan 2016 #14
DCBob Jan 2016 #32
Punkingal Jan 2016 #19
DCBob Jan 2016 #28
Punkingal Jan 2016 #34
DCBob Jan 2016 #36
treestar Jan 2016 #20
DCBob Jan 2016 #26
treestar Jan 2016 #31
6chars Jan 2016 #65
Proud Liberal Dem Jan 2016 #56
wyldwolf Jan 2016 #21
Nanjeanne Jan 2016 #22
DCBob Jan 2016 #25
Nanjeanne Jan 2016 #40
DCBob Jan 2016 #42
Nanjeanne Jan 2016 #43
DCBob Jan 2016 #44
Nanjeanne Jan 2016 #51
DCBob Jan 2016 #52
karynnj Jan 2016 #62
liberal N proud Jan 2016 #29
karynnj Jan 2016 #48
karynnj Jan 2016 #47
DCBob Jan 2016 #49
karynnj Jan 2016 #64
DCBob Jan 2016 #72
Tierra_y_Libertad Jan 2016 #50
pandr32 Jan 2016 #54
Thinkingabout Jan 2016 #58
SickOfTheOnePct Jan 2016 #60
nadinbrzezinski Jan 2016 #63
Gothmog Jan 2016 #69
DCBob Jan 2016 #70
Renew Deal Jan 2016 #78

Response to DCBob (Original post)

Sat Jan 30, 2016, 11:20 AM

1. She will never be charged with anything.

This is all about politics...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DemocratSinceBirth (Reply #1)

Sat Jan 30, 2016, 11:22 AM

2. Of course it is.

I would expect it from the Republicans but its a bit shocking to hear the same from those who also consider themselves Democrats.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DCBob (Reply #2)

Sat Jan 30, 2016, 11:27 AM

6. If you follow the story..

If you follow the story, most Republican prosecutors and former prosecutors believe Hillary should be in the dock and most Democratic prosecutors and former prosecutors believe she did nothing illegal.


Chris Christie is on CNN talking about it now as we speak.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DCBob (Reply #2)

Sat Jan 30, 2016, 01:12 PM

55. And you wont see Bernie talking about it, because he is better than that. Now, I cant speak

for some of his supporters.

This supporter thinks anyone who pushes this story has an agenda.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DemocratSinceBirth (Reply #1)

Sat Jan 30, 2016, 01:25 PM

59. True but that won't matter

THe Right-wing propaganda machine will beat a dead horse until it works for them.
The only question is - when will they start.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DCBob (Original post)

Sat Jan 30, 2016, 11:23 AM

3. Not Indicted 2016

 


Not much of a slogan.



Besides, we all know the Republican House will launch it's own investigation and release a report full of lies just before the General if Hillary is the nominee.


It would be great if the truth ruled all, it doesn't. She should have known better than to use a private server, she didn't.

One more example of her terrible judgement.


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Motown_Johnny (Reply #3)

Sat Jan 30, 2016, 11:26 AM

5. The slogan would be: "Unfairly bashed over and over and but keeps on standing".

Hillary is one tough lady and will make a tremendous President.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DCBob (Reply #5)

Sat Jan 30, 2016, 11:36 AM

12. She has made far to many mistakes to be a good President.

 

No fly zone in Syria

Marriage a sacred bond between a man and a woman

19 minute speech trying to convince other Senators to vote in favor of the Iraq war with her

Failed to pass health care reform as first lady

Support for NAFTA

Support for Welfare Reform

The list goes on and on. Yes, once the polls show that a majority of Americans disagree with her she will flip and get on the right side of things. That is far to late. If elected she will continue to make terrible mistakes and be a terrible President. Then we will lose badly in 2020 and the (R)s will be able to gain power in state governments and gerrymander districts in their favor, again.

Hillary should not be our nominee. Tough isn't good enough.


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Motown_Johnny (Reply #12)

Sat Jan 30, 2016, 11:40 AM

15. All of those issues are complex and have no clear cut right or wrong answer.

The bottom line to me is that she is probably the most experienced and intelligent person to ever run for President.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DCBob (Reply #15)

Sat Jan 30, 2016, 11:43 AM

17. Marriage equality has no right or wrong answer?

 

The Iraq war has no right or wrong answer?


Sorry, I disagree.



No way the person who did those things is even close to being the most experienced or intelligent to ever run for President.



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Motown_Johnny (Reply #17)

Sat Jan 30, 2016, 11:51 AM

23. Her positions on all those issues are complex and would require a lengthy discussion for each.

I dont have time at the moment to discuss them all and I am sure it wouldn't change your mind anyway. Im just stating how I feel and how many others who support Hillary feel.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DCBob (Reply #23)

Sat Jan 30, 2016, 11:56 AM

30. No, she was wrong about them and is wrong far to often to be a viable nominee.

 



If elected there is the real possibility that she would be a terrible President.

Try to list some hard decisions that she was right about. Good luck with that.

Woman's rights and health care for children are not hard choices. Of course she got those right, any reasonable person would.

She seems to always get the tougher ones wrong. Always.


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Motown_Johnny (Reply #30)

Sat Jan 30, 2016, 12:06 PM

37. That's your opinion.. I simply disagree.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DCBob (Reply #37)

Sat Jan 30, 2016, 12:08 PM

38. Then please list some hard choices she got right.

 


Good luck with that.



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Motown_Johnny (Reply #38)

Sat Jan 30, 2016, 12:26 PM

41. Don't have the time but in 40 years of public service one has to have made hard choices correctly...

or they would not have survived.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DCBob (Reply #41)

Sat Jan 30, 2016, 02:54 PM

66. Then how about naming just one?

 

Surely you have time for that!

Or can't it be done?


She had 4 years as Sec. of State, where Pres. Obama was making the decisions and only 8 years as a Senator when she could have actually been making some decisions.

That 40 years of experience making decisions is a unicorn.




Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Motown_Johnny (Reply #66)

Sat Jan 30, 2016, 06:57 PM

71. I would probably say her role in our relationship with Iran which led to the nuclear deal.

Not sure if she was the one who made all the final decisions but she surely played the key role in developing and implementing sanctions against Iran during her time as SOS which ultimately led to the nuclear agreement after she left. That will likely be President Obama's greatest legacy which will be shared by both SOS's Clinton and Kerry.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DCBob (Reply #71)

Sun Jan 31, 2016, 11:13 AM

73. That was Obama's call. Any Sec. of State would have been sent to do that.

 

She had no decision making role in that process.

Yes, she handled the tasks assigned to her well. I would never argue against that, but she has trouble making good decisions.


Let me give you an example of one call she did get right. Unfortunately she flipped on it, apparently because of a lack of integrity.





Now lets try to find one that she actually got right and kept with it. Again, good luck with that.


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Motown_Johnny (Reply #73)

Sun Jan 31, 2016, 11:28 AM

74. How do you know she wasn't involved in the decision making?

As SOS she should have been.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DCBob (Reply #74)

Sun Jan 31, 2016, 12:41 PM

75. I don't doubt her opinion was heard, but it was not her call.

 

That large a policy decision is not made at the Cabinet level.

Besides, we don't know if she was even in favor of it or not. Only that Pres. Obama made the right call.


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Motown_Johnny (Reply #75)

Sun Jan 31, 2016, 01:00 PM

77. So her opinion was correct.. no?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DCBob (Reply #15)

Sat Jan 30, 2016, 01:29 PM

61. Intelligent people don't get "fooled" by George W. Bush.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Motown_Johnny (Reply #12)

Sat Jan 30, 2016, 01:04 PM

53. Libya

Tens of thousands more dead for nothing.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Motown_Johnny (Reply #12)

Sun Jan 31, 2016, 12:55 PM

76. welfare reform

Why is reinstatement of welfare (Aid For Families with Dependents) not on Bernie's wish list? His supporters always bring up Bill Clinton's signing the Welfare Reform Bill (even though he did not have the support to veto it), but fall short of calling for its reinstatement.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Motown_Johnny (Reply #3)

Sat Jan 30, 2016, 11:41 AM

16. So, you propose another Trey Gowdy ass whooping. Good luck.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to oasis (Reply #16)

Sat Jan 30, 2016, 02:59 PM

67. It will come out right before the election. Yes he will be proved wrong, but not in time

 

to save the General election for us.


Not only Hillary, but all (D)s on the ticket will be hurt by it.



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Motown_Johnny (Reply #67)

Sat Jan 30, 2016, 03:38 PM

68. Any half-baked assault on a strong female Democratic candidate

will have the reverse effect.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DCBob (Original post)

Sat Jan 30, 2016, 11:23 AM

4. That's one prong of the investigation.

Just a reminder.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to mmonk (Reply #4)

Sat Jan 30, 2016, 11:28 AM

8. This "investigation" has been going on for years and still no smoking gun.

Why? Because there is none.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DCBob (Reply #8)

Sat Jan 30, 2016, 11:43 AM

18. It didn't begin with a public corruption angle.

It began with Benghazi.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to mmonk (Reply #18)

Sat Jan 30, 2016, 11:51 AM

24. It began with Hillery using a home email server

Hillary is not the victim of anyone else but her own actions.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to awake (Reply #24)

Sat Jan 30, 2016, 12:13 PM

39. I agree with that as well.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DCBob (Original post)

Sat Jan 30, 2016, 11:27 AM

7. Clinton- a cloud of uncertainty.

And then there's the emails.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DCBob (Original post)

Sat Jan 30, 2016, 11:29 AM

9. You've just highlighted that it was "mishandled." Speaks to judgment and decision making.

I'm not advocating she be thrown in jail, just that it's just one more in a series of poor decisions by her.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to EndElectoral (Reply #9)

Sat Jan 30, 2016, 11:37 AM

13. I think the situation she was in made it difficult to follow the strict guidelines perfectly.

I suspect every SOS has done similar things.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DCBob (Reply #13)

Sat Jan 30, 2016, 11:54 AM

27. What "situation she was in"? Sec. Clinton chose to use her personal email for work.

She had a secure, government-provided email account standing by.

She chose not to use the Department of State email account provisioned.

The only situation she was in was created by her decision to comingle a personal email account with official State Department (and any other official business) emails.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to KeepItReal (Reply #27)

Sat Jan 30, 2016, 12:01 PM

35. Yes, in hindsight it would have been better to have not done the private email server thing.

She has admitted that. I dont really hold that against her. I think she was just trying to keep it simple and keep it under her control. I might have done the same in her situation.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DCBob (Reply #35)

Sat Jan 30, 2016, 12:46 PM

45. I've worked in all sectors (public/private) in technology and it is not done like that

Only contractors may have scenarios where they could use their original company email addresses, but most clients will insist on contractors using a client-provided email account for work-related messages. Emails between 2 different domains/companies are *NOT* secure unless person-to-person encryption is used.

For an Executive to *not* use company or organization-administered email for work-related communications is extremely unusual. Folks lower in the food chain would not even think of going off standard-issue organization email.

Wanting to go off-script in terms of hardware is more common, though (like President Obama insisting on his Blackberry - and even POTUS wet through channels to keep it secure)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to KeepItReal (Reply #45)

Sat Jan 30, 2016, 12:48 PM

46. It wasn't unusual back then for government officials to use alternative email systems.

Things have changed now but back then it was allowed.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DCBob (Original post)

Sat Jan 30, 2016, 11:30 AM

10. My husband worked on classified systems all the time--didn't mishandle it.

What bullshit. "Everyone does it!"

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TwilightGardener (Reply #10)

Sat Jan 30, 2016, 11:59 AM

33. But y'know, don't you dare give it to a journalist

so he can blow wide open the immoral shit your county's been doing, then you're just a traitor and deserve to be hung

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DCBob (Original post)

Sat Jan 30, 2016, 11:31 AM

11. There aren't going to be any charges.

This investigation is a ripe plum on a low branch, ready for anyone to pick. And there are people lined up to pick this one.

There's no criminal there there. None.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MineralMan (Reply #11)

Sat Jan 30, 2016, 01:16 PM

57. Sorry, but you're trying to have it both ways. If you are going to state that this

investigation is merely "low hanging fruit", you must define the tree from which the fruit originates.

IMO - it is the tree of "questionable" (and perhaps "illegal" activities about which we speak. And please note that this fruit did not grow on it's own - it was not placed there by wingers; no, this fruit is of Hillary's own cultivation, it's there by her own hand.

Criminal? I don't know - time may tell.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DCBob (Original post)

Sat Jan 30, 2016, 11:39 AM

14. Not illegal ~ just sloppy work and poor judgement

It's the Clinton way.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to left-of-center2012 (Reply #14)

Sat Jan 30, 2016, 11:58 AM

32. Hillary has made a few mistakes in her 5 decades in public service.

Those who are perfect may cast stones.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DCBob (Original post)

Sat Jan 30, 2016, 11:44 AM

19. Notice "based on what's now known"

I really hope there is nothing to this email stuff...because if she is the nominee, I don't want her pulling us over a cliff with her because it turns out to be a problem.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Punkingal (Reply #19)

Sat Jan 30, 2016, 11:55 AM

28. He's just covering himself and tying to be very careful in his statements.

But its clear to me his overall opinion is that this is much ado about nothing.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DCBob (Reply #28)

Sat Jan 30, 2016, 12:00 PM

34. But how can any of us know?

This is an FBI investigation. I just worry that we will get screwed down the road because she gets in trouble. (And I honestly don't want that to happen.)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Punkingal (Reply #34)

Sat Jan 30, 2016, 12:05 PM

36. This investigation has been going on for years..

and they still have not found anything of illegal significance.. why? Because there is nothing there.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DCBob (Original post)

Sat Jan 30, 2016, 11:45 AM

20. I don't even see why people's minds even go there

Some people seem so punitive they want criminal charges for every little mishap. It's reminiscent of right wingers. The world is just not a perfect place and the things that go awry are not always at the level of criminal. It's the black and white mindset.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to treestar (Reply #20)

Sat Jan 30, 2016, 11:54 AM

26. Makes headlines.

It unfortunate and unfair Hilary has to deal with all this crap but that's politics.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DCBob (Reply #26)

Sat Jan 30, 2016, 11:58 AM

31. Yes. Heightened drama.

If it's just an ordinary civil matter, it's not dramatic enough.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink



Response to treestar (Reply #20)

Sat Jan 30, 2016, 01:13 PM

56. It's personal for some people

Republicans don't want to face her and some left-wingers REALLY don't want her to be the nominee and have to vote for her. Both groups want to see her washed out of the race. So far, both groups, despite some titilating headlines, aren't getting what they want.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DCBob (Original post)

Sat Jan 30, 2016, 11:47 AM

21. Stephen Vladeck is a known status quo DLC oligarch

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DCBob (Original post)

Sat Jan 30, 2016, 11:48 AM

22. I agree she won't be indicted

But that won't stop Republicans going after her in a General Election. I think her judgment makes her much more vulnerable in the general than the Red baiting that Bernie will face. Bernie has a reputation of integrity that pushes back a lot of noise. Hillary has a reputation of dishonesty that encourages noise.

Not saying that dishonesty mantle is valid. But it sure makes her less electable in a general to me.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Nanjeanne (Reply #22)

Sat Jan 30, 2016, 11:52 AM

25. Don't worry.. she can handle anything the Republicans can throw at her.

Bernie? Not so sure.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DCBob (Reply #25)

Sat Jan 30, 2016, 12:17 PM

40. And I feel quite confident in Bernie

After all he has been in many more elections than Hillary and done quite well.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Nanjeanne (Reply #40)

Sat Jan 30, 2016, 12:34 PM

42. Bernie has no idea what is coming if he somehow miraculously wins the nomination.

Running for office in Vermont does not prepare one for running for President.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DCBob (Reply #42)

Sat Jan 30, 2016, 12:39 PM

43. Thanks for your advice

I will pass it along to all the Governers who run for President. Because being the Governer of Arkasas gave Bill LOTS of experience. And of course Obama was a Senator for some years from Illinois so no wonder Hillary went after him too. Me? I think both Obama and Sanders have way better judgement than Hillary. But that's what makes politics so interesting. All these pronouncements that have been proven wrong so many times.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Nanjeanne (Reply #43)

Sat Jan 30, 2016, 12:43 PM

44. In case you haven't noticed Vermont is probably the most liberal/least diverse state in the country.

Which makes it one of the most unrepresentative states in the country.. which backs up my initial claims.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DCBob (Reply #44)

Sat Jan 30, 2016, 01:00 PM

51. Oh I see

It's the Bernie can't get POC meme.

Thanks! I'll just fold my chair up and go home now. Hillary's got it in the bag, doncha know. As Carville said in his recent email to Clinton supporters (yes I get them since I gave money long ago to the DNC) - she's the most qualified maybe since George Washington!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Nanjeanne (Reply #51)

Sat Jan 30, 2016, 01:04 PM

52. Its more than that but that's part of it for sure.

Its clear Bernie has a problem connecting with non-white voters. That's a problem for any candidate running in a general election.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DCBob (Reply #44)

Sat Jan 30, 2016, 01:29 PM

62. My husband and I could have chosen any state to retire to -- we certainly did not consider Arkansas

- though we did visit the Ozark area in Missouri/Arkansas -- which incidentally was the ONLY state my extended family ever had our annual reunion in where the immediate (and long term) conclusion was not to ever even consider returning. (Not so, Illinois, Indiana, Wisconsin, Minnesota, WA, OR, CA, NC, AZ, KY, MI ...) This was not one person -- but the unanimous view of the then about 20 adults.)

Vermont, on the other hand, was what we wanted. Not just the beauty and the many things we wanted to do, but the genuine decency and sense of community. I have never seen any place where as high a percent of the community actually engages in the political discourse and where so much that makes the town good is done by volunteers. I have always lived in smaller towns than Burlington - whether in Indiana or NJ -- but in none was it even remotely respected that people have access to elected officials. Burlington may have 42,000 people, but everyone knows they can get face time with the mayor. In our part of town, he regularly comes to a bagel place from 8 to 9 every Wednesday morning and anyone can ask him anything.

Of course, VT is not a typical state -- but, Thank God, neither is Arkansas. Where VT ranks very high on nearly every quality of life measurement, Arkansas is near the bottom. I remember when Bill Clinton ran in 1992 - he touted what they did on education - but Arkansas was in the bottom 10 (and I think bottom 5) states - and this was after all he and Hillary did - and they tried very very hard. Arkansas was among the worst on environmental issues - notably that they allowed a major chicken producer to contaminate the rivers in part of the state. Bill Clinton was NOT elected for what he accomplished in Arkansas, but his words and his charisma against at least some 2016 HRC like opponents who knew they had the better resume.

Bernie was mayor of Burlington at a key time - the fact is that starting when he was in office Burlington became a better place to live and work - not just for some - but for most of the community. Yes, VT is not that diverse, but mostly white Chittendon country (where Burlington is) applied to be a refugee resettlement area in the late 1980s - and that continues until today. The community has worked hard to absorb these people and help them create productive lives. That means that it is not unusual as you walk or bike around town that you see people from Somalia, wearing long dresses and veils .. or people from Nepal, many traditionally dressed etc.

My husband and I volunteered a couple of hours a week in a first grade class. About a fourth of the kids were either POC, mostly refugees. The teacher was incredible in handling the diversity and from our observation, the kids did not self segregate. (The school used volunteers to allow more one on one work with kids where needed, including many doing quite well but having no parent they could read to because they had the best English in the family.)

All I know is that Bernie could use photos of Burlington before he was mayor ... contrasted to photos as he left and argue that he wants to do for America what he did for Burlington. Note Bill Clinton did not even try that --- running instead on the hope that he and his personal story personified.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DCBob (Original post)

Sat Jan 30, 2016, 11:56 AM

29. Another GOP lead attack with suspect timing

The email server announcements have all been timed with important moments in Hillary’s run at the White House.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to liberal N proud (Reply #29)

Sat Jan 30, 2016, 12:56 PM

48. They are dictated by a judge ordering them at the end of each month

Yesterday was the last working day of January. Not to mention, the SD has only part of this last batch ready, so they couldn't have put them out - say 2 weeks ago.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DCBob (Original post)

Sat Jan 30, 2016, 12:54 PM

47. Strawman: the issue is HRC will be indicted -- Reality: this is a serious negative issue that hurts

The quote rejects the idea that she will be indicted. However, the CW for months is that she will not be indicted, but that her actions showed the HRC perchance for secrecy and considering that rules were for others. Fair or not, those are negative memes that existed before this that are validated by this.

Your quote addresses the strawman, which few here fear will happen. You did not touch how this impacts how HRC is seen -- even though their is ample polling to suggest that she has been hurt by this - in terms of honesty and trustworthiness.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to karynnj (Reply #47)

Sat Jan 30, 2016, 12:56 PM

49. Its an issue that most voters have been hearing about for many months and have dismissed.

For most, if there was actually something there it would have been found by now.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DCBob (Reply #49)

Sat Jan 30, 2016, 01:42 PM

64. I think you are likely correct that people have already absorbed the issue

I disagree that they have dismissed it as nothing happened.

They likely have rejected it as something that would change their vote. In that way, she is very lucky that she does not have an opponent who could be said to have - for the most part - a similar platform - as was true for Obama and Edwards.

In the general election, that will be more stark. I assume that there will be many facing a less drastic version of what we in NJ thought we had to face in 2002. I know that I and many others had realized that we would vote for the ethically impaired Toricelli over his right wing Republican opponent (Forrest?). I think that - if the party had not pushed him to resign allowing them to replace him with the wonderful Lautenberg - Toricelli would have been reelected because we would be voting for someone to cast votes in line with the Democrats and because it was thought that we could determine control of the Senate.

Now, I don't think Clinton is as ethically problematic as Torricelli, but I could list many many politicians I think are cleaner - starting with Sanders and Obama.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to karynnj (Reply #64)

Sat Jan 30, 2016, 07:14 PM

72. I think once the investigations are over.. and they will eventually be over..

and nothing of substance will be found and no charges will be made, most voters will see her as the innocent victim and the Republicans as the vicious attackers.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DCBob (Original post)

Sat Jan 30, 2016, 12:59 PM

50. That's what the banksters said about sub-prime loans. "not uncommon" and legal charges unlikely".

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DCBob (Original post)

Sat Jan 30, 2016, 01:06 PM

54. Agreed

It comes right on the heels of that Benghazi movie, too. So many millions spent, not to mention valuable time and energy, trying to tear down the most qualified candidate on the American political landscape. Why? Certainly not because she has "ties to Wall Street" or "was for the TPP" before she wasn't. That is just part of the rhetorical package of well-funded smear.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DCBob (Original post)

Sat Jan 30, 2016, 01:22 PM

58. Kevin McCarthy stated this plainly, the Benghazi hearings was about destroying Hillary.

The emails came up in the Benghazi hearings, the changes of email use started in the Obama administration.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DCBob (Original post)

Sat Jan 30, 2016, 01:29 PM

60. I don't think she'll be charged

but I'm betting that whomever was sending the classified email will be charged.

Her out is that it wasn't marked "classified", so she can credibly say that she didn't realize she had classified info on an unclassified system.

But the person/people sending it? They knew it was classified and sent it anyway.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DCBob (Original post)

Sat Jan 30, 2016, 01:37 PM

63. Of course she won't

 

she is very well connected. If she were private clinton, that would be a different story.

But hey, whatever.

I agree, there will be zero charges and no, I am not saying this because I favor one candidate over the other,. I am saying this because if you are a member of the establishment and rich, and white, your chances of facing charges are minimized by orders of magnitude, no matter what you do.

This is the reality of the judicial system in the United States right now. Just go ask people at the hood about that.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DCBob (Original post)

Sat Jan 30, 2016, 03:46 PM

69. The concept that Clinton is facing an indictment is silly

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Gothmog (Reply #69)

Sat Jan 30, 2016, 06:39 PM

70. Yes it is but the media loves it and the Republicans and Bernie supporters keep pushing it.

Its an ugly symbiotic relationship of those that benefit.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DCBob (Original post)

Sun Jan 31, 2016, 01:02 PM

78. Bernie wouldn't benefit anyway.

The party would nominate Biden.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread