Should Bernie revisit Hillary's emails?

[thesquanderer]

I'm not talking about contradicting anything he's said before... not that it's not important, but simply that there is a process that should play out, and in the mean time, talking about them is a distraction from the real issues that affect people's lives.

But as we get closer to wrapping this up, with the cloud of investigation still hanging over her head these months later, maybe it is worth reminding people that, to the extent that "electability" is an issue, there is an advantage to having a nominee who doesn't enter the race with that possible distraction in the general... something that would certainly be exploited by her Republican opponent, and something that could even end up occupying an inordinate amount of her time and energy, depending on which way the investigation goes.

[Cali_Democrat]

1. Please proceed, Senator.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/03/04/democrats-simply-dont-seem-to-care-about-hillary-clintons-email-server-issue/

[RobertEarl]

2. Electability is a key

He is the most electable for several reasons, one is the FBI investigation and two he's just the best as seen in nationwide polling.

NY voters can do this and they should vote for the real NYorker.

[geek tragedy]

3. after he made a big point about how everyone's tired of hearing about her emails?

And, I'm pretty sure she's been coached on this issue a lot more than he has.

[noretreatnosurrender]

4. No

He should do just what he's been doing. When your opponent is in potential trouble it's best to just stand back and let them fall all on their own.

[JackRiddler]

5. The content? Sure. The "security" scandal? No.

The e-mails show a Secretary of State engineering an unprovoked war to destroy the nation of Libya, backing a military coup d'etat in Honduras, and facilitating a soft coup leading to a civil war in the Ukraine. Not to mention actors profiteering from all of the above. Among other things.

All that is policy in the Kissingerian mode, and fair game.

The bullshit about oh dear god it's a violation of security law, I don't think should be a focus. That just plays into repressive politics and the secrecy regime that makes such routinely criminal policy possible. I believe in more disclosure of policy, not less!

But I wouldn't mind seeing a whole raftload of natsec criminals dating back to Reagan indicted for the crimes they've actually committed. Not the crimes against "security," but the crimes against humanity.

But that's a bipartisan routine, is it not? And sadly even Sen. Sanders has largely voted for it, even if he avoided supporting the most barbaric atrocities, such as the war of aggression that destroyed the nation of Iraq.

[nadinbrzezinski]

9. I disagree, but slightly

the reason I disagree about the security issue, that is a real issue, but that is a law enforcement issue. A potential CiC should not say a thing that might even seem to interfere with the DoJ investigation. Nuanced, for this site, I am positive.



For the record, the email issue is a major issue for the stump speech already of Senator Cruz... and he not only got amens to what was actually a pretty funny line, but a few "she belongs in jail."

I actually had to repress chuckles a few times. We posted the full speech and me even chuckling would not be good.

[guillaumeb]

11. What an excellent answer. Really well put. eom

[grasswire]

6. no, he can let the surrogates go after it

and he can express surprise when the indictment comes.

[MattP]

7. He brings it up all the time when he says

I dont even talk about her emails, which is pretty lame

[Kelvin Mace]

8. Hmmmm....

[silvershadow]

10. I think he was interested in her Wall St "speech" transcripts, but Hillary can't find them. nt

[TCJ70]

12. No, he should walk in and drop his tax returns in front of her..

...then ask her where her speech transcripts are.

[dana_b]

13. No

that's up to the investigators.

[trueblue2007]

14. NO.