1. Maybe she set the home server up it because she was paranoid about State Department or other government IT/security people having access to information that could be used politically against her. She took her chances with hackers, foreign and domestic.

--1 (a). Maybe foreign hackers got in and real damage was done.

--1(b). Maybe Republicans got in and the Obama DOJ is about to lower the boom on them.

--1 (c). Maybe both Republicans and foreigners got in and and the DOJ can't go after the political hackers without divulging the sensitive information leaked in open court.

--1(d). Maybe people from a government agency got in and a debate is going on whether the wrongdoing of the agency was greater than wrongdoing shown in the e-mails, or in setting the server up in the first place.

2. Maybe it was all a sting in the first place and there was fake information on the server. A honey pot to plant disinformation for foreign hackers. She was cooperating.

--2(a). Maybe Republicans operative(s) hacked in and saw some of the fake information as political ammo to be used in the fall.

----2(a)(1). Maybe the DOJ can't go after the political hackers without divulging the sensitive information as false.


I wouldn't assume anything. The possibilities are almost endless.

Bernie is looking like the VP pick to heal and move forward.

No. There are plenty of politically conscious, civic minded people with spare money to spend on Wall Street who have good intentions.

But Wall Street as a whole benefits from wealth concentration, the globalization trend, and friendly regulation.

Wall Street also attracts money from all over the world, from nouveaux riche factory owners in China who don't trust their own government to dictators to narco-traffickers. They influence the people who donate to politicians.

It bears watching.

but it is also likely that Bernie would be ahead now if her nomination wasn't viewed as a foregone conclusion at the outset of the process.

???

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/04/27/opinion/the-cult-of-sore-losers.html?action=click&pgtype=Homepage&clickSource=story-heading&module=opinion-c-col-right-region®ion=opinion-c-col-right-region&WT.nav=opinion-c-col-right-region

With a picture of Bernie..is that really fair?

Don't you think the guy feels some obligation to the all the people who came to his rallies and gave their hard-earned money? Not like they were Wall Street billionaires.

Hillary needs to build credibility among Reagan Democrats, to lure them back from Trump, who is getting most of his support from that demographic.

Trump needs to make inroads with suburban Rockefeller Republicans, who see Hillary as a centrist from with upper middle-class origins, i.e. one of them, and Trump as a potential loose cannon, a dangerous demagogue with his finger on the button.

Chances are that both of them are going to shape-shift and will be perceived differently by November to try to reach those audiences. Trump is going to tone it down and stress that he is a centrist, and Hillary is going to spend a lot of time in jeans rubbing elbows in American Legion and union halls with blue collar workers.

Thoughts?

will there be?

http://www.cnn.com/2016/04/19/politics/new-york-primary-voter-problem-polls-sanders-de-blasio/

A little before the polls here closed at 9 p.m., the polling site coordinator at Brooklyn Borough Hall estimated that about 10% of those who showed up to vote on Tuesday were previously removed by the board of elections.