What Will Bernie Do?

From what I just read, trying to find what information Blickers is talking about, the FBI can't indict Hillary. When they finish the investigation, then they can recommend to the Attorney General for an indictment and then there is a long process which will last well after the convention date.

Robin Hubbard, Observes US politics; Social Scientist; BS'79 Economics Political Science minor

There are a lot of different answers to the question asked "
If Hillary Clinton is indicted in June or July when the FBI investigation is scheduled to finish, will President Obama issue a pardon?" However, the one above is the most complete answer IMO.

So if Bernie is hanging around until the convention because of a possible FBI indictment, the chances of there being an indictment before or directly after the convention are pretty small.

Never did find where an announcement by the FBI is expected.

And (though I know this little factoid gripes the hell out of the Hillary haters) the present Attorney General just happens to be a very outspoken Hillary advocate. So, if an indictment depends on the AG to bring it...

It should gripe the hell out of all Americans.

Depends on the particular American's perspective. Me, I think there isn't an indictment request coming from the FBI because they aren't going to have any grounds. If you're of the opinion that Hillary is definitely guilty of something, I can understand your being griped. And if you're griped about this, I imagine November 8th and the next4-8 years is really going to piss you off.

Whether or not the AG is a Clinton supporter should have nothing to do with the investigation. That you're not only OK with the possibility that it does, but are hoping for it speaks volumes about you, and erodes, considerably, the sanctimonious platform upon which you launch your political positions.

You can't run from what you wrote.

It shouldn't have anything to do with the investigation, but anytime you are involved with a political figure and an investigation it is always political. If the AG couldn't stand Hillary, I imagine that would adversely affect her case as well.

She hasn't done anything wrong, countless experts have said, there isn't much of a case. So far even the officials of the FBI have said they have not found much. She would have had to have intentions of revealing classified information to unauthorized persons in order for her to be indicted. Merely not going by guidelines or rules is not criminal. (from what I understand after reading countless articles.)

... said the sanctimonious pot to the kettle.

Run from it? I embrace it. And the fact that my views sorely offend your delicately tuned sense of justice (snort) just tips me that I'm doing something right. I love that all the right wing heroes have had to choke on 8 years of Obama, and I'm going to thoroughly enjoy the discomfort that 4 to 8 years of Hillary brings them. Thanks for cheering my day.

What he wrote is the FBI doent have anything to indight her with. You and people like you have been posting lies about Hillary and Bill since 1992 and the only thing you have come up with is Bill lying to the FBI about getting a piece in the Whitehouse. It really gets frustrating that after 24 years of telling lie after lie it has no effect. Right?

I really can't find it in my heart to get all pissed off about an email server being used. Really, I cant.

Neither will the voters. And that's going to piss the Republicans off in a big way.

Whether the AG is a Clinton supporter or not has nothing to do with the laws that require that Clinton willfully removed or willfully intended to give classified material to someone unauthorized.

It's the laws that matter in this case and there has been nothing alleged that would allow for Hillary Clinton to have broken laws. Laws that even if broken, as in the case of Patreaus, only result in a misdemeanor conviction. There is nothing there, Finn. All you have to do is research the laws and compare them to the known facts in the case.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/part-I/chapter-37

Laws that regulate an organization may result in civil penalties, and organizations will go to great lengths to education the employees on the compliance rules.

But failure to comply with the rules results in a penalty for the organization, not criminal charges for the person who broke compliance.

Partisan, pure and simple. Prove me the same.

What he wrote was chuckling about the fact that whatever her crimes, Hillary will get a pass because the AG is a Democrat.

Deny this?

Prove that you're partisan? Honestly, man. You are beyond tiresome. Rotten with sanctimony and partisanship, and steady pointing fingers. Yes, I'm partisan, and I'm glad that the AG may have political bias that would lean in favor of my candidate if she had to make a call. Clutch your pearls, call the law, whatever. SO tiresome.

By the way, I ALSO believe that Hillary has committed no crime, and that the FBI won't be seeking an indictment against her, so all the talk about what Loretta Lynch might do is moot.

What crime? None has been proven. Opinion dosent mean shyt.

Forgive ahead of time for derailing the thread, I absolutely hate starting threads, it makes me nervous. Since the Attorney Loretta Lynch was mentioned a while back and since the Guantanamo prison is not talked about anywhere else, I hope I can be forgiven. If nothing else this article proves the AG is not automatically a partisan AG, at least towards Obama. I think he might should consider going around her but it appears he won't.

Exclusive: Justice Department opposes new Obama proposal on Guantanamo

It is just inhumane not to charge these remaining 80 prisoners and let them have their day in court and be found guilty or innocent. Apparently 30 will be released soon, so that leaves fifty. I just don't see what is so objectionable about the proposal. Special circumstances need special solutions even if it does against normal procedures. At least those remaining prisoners will get out of limbo and we can finally shut down that shameful place.

Heeeeeere we go:

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/08/us/politics/bernie-sanders-hillary-clinton.html



Honestly, this makes sense as a moment. California was finalized a couple of days ago (Hillary won), on the same day came the news that she won't be indicted over the email thing, and Bernie got several big concessions from her including the new college initiative. I think she did more than she really needed to, but that's to her credit. Onward.

I'm glad about that at least. I hope it does some good at both taking the conversation away from the whole email mess and bringing some persuadable Bernie supporters along to support Hillary beating Trump for President. Maybe Blickers knew what he was talking re. the indictment and Bernie waiting to endorse Hillary. (He has officially stepped down from his campaign rather than just suspending it, hasn't he?)

Bernie? He hasn't officially done anything yet but unofficially it looks like it's happening early next week.