Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders said in an interview airing Sunday that voters will need to take a "hard look" at the State Department audit criticizing Clinton for her use of a private email server, but stopped short of going after her directly for it.

"The Inspector General just came out with a report, it was not a good report for Secretary Clinton. That is something that the American people, Democrats and delegates are going to have to take a hard look at," he said. "But for me right now, I continue to focus on how we can rebuild a disappearing middle class, deal with poverty, guarantee health care to all of our people as a right."

Back in the fall, at the first Democratic debate, Sanders famously said he was "sick and tired of hearing about [her] damn emails," and it's not an issue the Vermont senator has used against Clinton on the campaign trail.

Meanwhile, perhaps the moment has come when Donald Trump, blustering rape accuser, should respond to the rape accusations lodged against him by his estranged first wife Ivana – in a sworn deposition — during their bitter 1990 divorce, which a New York court eventually granted her on grounds of “cruel and inhuman treatment” by Trump. Journalist Harry Hurt III first recounted the ugly details of Trump’s allegedly very violent assault on Ivana –which involved ripping out her patches of her hair as well as sexually violating her – in his book The Last Tycoon.

Although Ivana sought to withdraw her accusation after the Daily Beast reported it last year, Hurt told me there is much more to be learned from the Trump divorce papers, which are under seal. So here is a suggestion for Trump, who still refuses to release his tax returns as American presidential candidates have done routinely for decades.

If he wants to accuse other people of rape and intimidation, Trump should unseal his divorce papers and let voters assess his standing to make those charges. The evidence gathered about Bill Clinton by the independent counsel’s sex probe is public record. If Trump has nothing to hide, he should let the public view the evidence of what he did to his first wife – and then they can judge him accordingly. If he doesn’t have the guts to disclose those scathing documents, then maybe he should shut up about the Clintons’ marriage, which endures.

It’s a complicated issue that John Weir gets into in detail here. But what isn’t complicated is that a group of America’s top HIV activists sat down with Bernie Sanders and told him unequivocally that they opposed this initiative. Sanders turned around and lied about them, and their alleged support for this initiative, ostensibly to endear himself to key organizations in California that can help him in the upcoming primary race in that state.

The thing is, the activists left the meeting pleased with Sanders, thinking things had gone well. Here’s Peter Staley:

We were all set to spin this meeting quite positively, but this press release is very misleading. Please see my post from last night — there were no attacks against the Senator in my first post on the meeting. We’ll still be reporting some of the positive stuff that came out of it. But his press team really scr*wed us.

It’s bad enough that Sanders blew off the AIDS community last month, and that up until a month or so ago Sanders didn’t even mention AIDS on the rather-short-on-substance LGBT page on his campaign site (the page was only beef upped after I publicly complained about its paucity). But for Sanders to take a community that’s already ticked at him, that he’s already dissed, and then use his meeting with them to curry favor with key political allies in a primary state is the height of the very Machiavellian politics that Sanders claims to eschew.

...during the interview Kimmel jokingly said that Bernie Sanders (who’s his guest tomorrow night) wanted to know if Trump was willing to debate him since Hillary Clinton declined an invitation for a debate hosted by Fox News.

“If I debated him, we would have such high ratings. And I think, I should give, I should take that money and find some worthy charity,” Trump said.

Be that as it may, Sanders was eager to put the presumptive GOP nominee on the spot by agreeing to debate him, tweeting this after Trump’s comment:
"Game on. I look forward to debating Donald Trump in California before the June 7 primary."

Yeah, if it’s not her tireless work ethic or long record of public service or anything about her political record that David Brooks finds necessary to bring up here, but rather, it’s something powerfully subjective about this whole situation—WHAT COULD THAT THING BE?

Phenomenally, the conclusion David Brooks draws even from this ninth-grade-level critical assessment is not that Clinton’s professional demeanor is off-putting to people because we have been conditioned for centuries to expect warm and familial subservience from women. (As this column itself also does not contain the words “sexism” or “sexist” and points out that Clinton’s personal appeal points have been limited to “a few grandma references,” we would, I guess, not expect David Brooks to be able to recognize his own mistakes.) Rather he concludes that Clinton’s professional demeanor is off-putting to a wide swath of Americans because of the era of social media, which is personalist (OK, MAN) and vulnerable.

That is literally the best idea he’s got.

a better place to troll is democratic underground - the members are in control of moderation through the jury system but are not allowed to start threads about how the juries are being unfair, lol

go to general discussion: primaries board and they fight like crazy using arguments that never convince the other side

Inevitably, it all comes back to 4chan. The notorious online community of predatory hackers, disgruntled youths, and disenfranchised perverts, are known for pioneering “doxing” and other harmful online harassment techniques. They have now set their short sights on the American political system – in favor of Trump.

Recent chat logs have come to light which indicate that certain users of 4chan have been systematically targeting Democratic-leaning posts and social media users, inciting them with inflammatory material in an attempt to spur division between the Hillary and Bernie camps.