Nominating a Presidential Candidate Under Active FBI Investigation Is An Incredibly Risky Gamble

[imagine2015]

CURRENT AFFAIRS
March 14, 2016

Nominating a Presidential Candidate Under Active FBI Investigation Is An Incredibly Risky Gamble
by Nathan J. Robinson

Nathan J. Robinson is a Social Policy PhD student at Harvard University, as well as an attorney and children's book author. He is the editor of Current Affairs.

So nobody should care about the damned emails. Clinton’s misdeed should be an internal agency matter, with procedures fixed in the future. In terms of its significance to human wellbeing, the issue is just as trivial as Bernie Sanders says it is. Clinton is right about overclassification, and it’s a just a shame she only became interested in the problem when it began to threaten her personally.

Yet now we have created a legal structure in which the mishandling of totally harmless classified information is treated akin to terrorism, unless Clinton is treated as being at serious risk of prosecution, we essentially acknowledge the nonexistence of the rule of law. There are two possibilities here: either we trust the Obama administration to treat this case like any other, in which case (given the government’s paranoia, liberal deployment of the Espionage Act, and history of other excessive prosecutions) Clinton has a massive looming liability and nominating her would be a massive gamble. Or we believe that, while the government will eagerly make mountains out of molehills for minor Naval reservists, Hillary Clinton will receive the benefit of the doubt due to the political necessity of ensuring she becomes the Democratic nominee and keeps Trump out of the White House. And that would require us to accept some very troubling conclusions about the politicized nature of the American justice system.

In a world where we expected the law to be equally applied to all, Democrats should be panicking right now over the status of the investigations against Clinton and the Clinton campaign’s troubling responses. The Washington Post has documented numerous misstatements and evasions made by Clinton around the emails, concluding that “it appears Clinton often used highly technical language to obscure the salient fact that her private email setup was highly unusual and flouted existing regulations.” All of this should be making Democrats panic, and sending them scrambling to find a non-indictable nominee.

But that’s not happening, for a very obvious reason. Nobody seriously believes the law would be applied to Clinton with the same pitiless irrationality as it was to Bryan Nishimura. Yet that leaves us with a stark choice: either treat the Clinton scandal as troubling and a major campaign issue, or acknowledge that we are entrusting an oligarchical justice system to make the issue go away for Clinton in a way it wouldn’t for anyone else. Neither choice should leave Democrats comfortable. ?

https://www.currentaffairs.org/2016/03/nominating-a-presidential-candidate-under-active-fbi-investigation-is-an-incredibly-risky-gamble

[LWolf]

1. Yes, and so is

nominating a candidate with such high negatives, and a candidate that doesn't poll as well against opponents in November as other choices.

It appears that the establishment, the neo-liberal wing of the party, is determined to drive off a cliff. Hopefully, they'll take responsibility in November.

[yellowcanine]

7. If she is nominated it will be because Democratic voters nominated her.

You can blame it on the "establishment" if you want but that is the truth.

[tk2kewl]

9. and if she loses the GE it will because not enough

Independent voters voted for her.

[yellowcanine]

12. Many Independent and Republican women will vote Clinton against Trump.

I firmly believe that.

[tk2kewl]

13. that's a gamble I'm not comfortable with

[yellowcanine]

20. So what is your solution? Over-rule the voters?

I am not comfortable with that.

[tk2kewl]

22. keep pushing to the convention

And here from all the voters

[yellowcanine]

26. The OP says "Nominating a Pres. Candidate...." That happens at the convention.

So what is your beef?

[vintx]

14. Glad you feel confident about your gambling with the world's future. nt

[Hiraeth]

42. you are assuming something that has not yet happened. I am not so sure Trump will

win the R nomination. at all.

[guillaumeb]

29. OR, she will lose because her message and positions are uninspiring to those voters.

Another possibility. Many voters are apathetic because they believe that both parties are essentially the same.

[LWolf]

27. Of course.

And if Democratic voters are short-sighted enough to nominate her, then the country and the Democratic Party, along with those Democratic voters, will pay the price of that short-sightedness.

The reality is that there is a struggle within the party for party identity, and whom the party will represent. If the neo-liberal block wins, then the party will become irrelevant for the 99%. That neo-liberal block can no longer depend on the rest of the party staying at the back of the Democratic bus. Many are going to get off that bus and start finding a different way to move forward.

[ViseGrip]

2. Touche'

[alcibiades_mystery]

3. This argument has failed and failed again

Y'all keep making it, and Democratic primary voters keep ignoring or discounting it.

It is a shitty and ineffective argument.

[tk2kewl]

10. until it's not

Like when she has to face the 40+% of the electorate that has no party affiliation

[imagine2015]

16. Do you have a contribution you'd like to make in support of that argument?

Writing it is "shitty" really doesn't add much in defense of that position.

Nothing in fact!

A huge majority of likely voters have not and will not vote in the primary elections.

[alcibiades_mystery]

23. Isn't this supposed to convince people to nominate somebody else, though?

It's not working.



What do I need to contribute: an argument is put forth saying "Don't nominate Clinton! It's too risky!" Various forms of this nonsense have been in play for a year.

Democratic primary voters are like, "Uh, y'know what? Fuck all that. I'm voting Clinton."

Therefore, it's a shitty argument. It is completely ineffective. It doesn't work. It's not working. People are rejecting it. It's not persuasive. It's not compelling. It doesn't accomplish its rhetorical aims. How do I know? Because Hillary is running away with the nomination.

[JaneyVee]

4. Thank you, Karl Rove!

[Matariki]

8. Great idea, ignore reality.

what a mess you folks are creating.

[imagine2015]

17. What are you thanking Karl Rove for? He's a Republican and a-hole. You didn't know that?

[artyteacher]

5. again they arent investigating her...

Only the security of her emails and they don't want to release everything without looking at them.

[global1]

15. I Just Thought That This Thread Needs To Consider The Following.....

http://www.democraticunderground.com/12511509720

[yellowcanine]

6. Has it been established that Clinton is a target of the FBI investigation?

I don't think we can assume this to be true.

[randome]

24. Always assume the worst. It's the only way to go through life.

[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]

[leftofcool]

39. It has been established that she in NOT the target.

[Tarc]

11. Apparently, the voters disagree with this assment

[imagine2015]

18. Which voters? The tens of millions who will not vote until the General Election?

[Tarc]

25. You're making a claim unsupported by the reality of the primary voting thus far

As Clinton is beating Sanders, handily, thus far, the voters feel either that it is worth the risk or that it is not a risk at all.

[imagine2015]

31. It's not a claim. It's a fact. Tens of millions of people who haven't voted in the primaries

will vote in the General Election.

[geek tragedy]

19. clap louder for the Indictment Fairy, Bernie fans! nt

[Hell Hath No Fury]

33. No indictment needed.

I am going to let you in on a little secret: I think the whole email "scandal" is a load of bull designed by the GOP to hurt Clinton's Presidential campaign.

BUT.

I also know that Trump and the GOP will bang this "investigation" like a fucking gong in their fight against her. That is a FACT. They don't need an indictment to do their damage, they only need the appearance that they and the media have created. Fair or not, that is the reality we are dealing with.

Unless the whole investigation is wrapped up 100% before the GE this WILL hurt her candidacy, maybe not with Democrats but certainly with the Independents the Party will need to win.

If you don't see that, you are blind indeed.

[imagine2015]

35. That was a in the gutter nasty comment. Why do you hate liberals so much?

[mmonk]

21. I hear it's not well.. because of us and our unicorns on justice

and representation.

[pdsimdars]

28. Very clear understanding. . . . it's one or the other. . . . .neither is good for her campaign

[AzDar]

30. So MANY skeletons...

[Hell Hath No Fury]

32. Yup.

The GOP won't even have to prove anything wrong was done just refer to the investigation, over and over and over, on an endless loop. The ads write themselves.

[imagine2015]

38. That and a batch of other really nasty commercials to discredit her.

[mmonk]

34. Not for a dollar in a pocket.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

36. "Shut-up!" they explained.

[creeksneakers2]

37. The investigation is expected

to wrap up in May. Hopefully, there will be enough time to choose another nominee if need be.

[leftofcool]

40. Epic Fail

[LexVegas]

41. Death throes of a dying campaign. nt