http://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-clinton-email-probe-20160327-story.html

Any changes or nervousness yet, Democrats?

The election data from the last week shows concern in my opinion. The last three elections/caucuses were Sanders blowouts.

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2016/03/29/susan-sarandon-trump-might-be-better-for-america-than-hillary-clinton.html

I would have never guessed that one.

bbauska wrote:http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2016/03/29/susan-sarandon-trump-might-be-better-for-america-than-hillary-clinton.html

I would have never guessed that one.

Hmm, she's kind of predicting a revolution if Trump gets elected--against him. Of course, a revolution by the anti-gun people seems a dubious proposition.

bbauska wrote:http://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-clinton-email-probe-20160327-story.html

Any changes or nervousness yet, Democrats?

The election data from the last week shows concern in my opinion. The last three elections/caucuses were Sanders blowouts.

I think she should get out of the race and instruct super-delegates and the rest of America to back Bernie. But then, I'm not a Democrat.

geojanes wrote:

bbauska wrote:http://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-clinton-email-probe-20160327-story.html

Any changes or nervousness yet, Democrats?

The election data from the last week shows concern in my opinion. The last three elections/caucuses were Sanders blowouts.

I think she should get out of the race and instruct super-delegates and the rest of America to back Bernie. But then, I'm not a Democrat.

You know that won't happen. The Party would never permit it. They will fly in Biden to take it away.

Doctor Fate wrote:

geojanes wrote:
I think she should get out of the race and instruct super-delegates and the rest of America to back Bernie. But then, I'm not a Democrat.

You know that won't happen. The Party would never permit it. They will fly in Biden to take it away.

Yes, I know that won't happen, but it has as much chance of happening as Biden does becoming the nominee. Biden is a moron. Sure, he could possibly win an election, but to be a brokered choice? Never going to happen.

I also don't think that Bernie has much of a chance at this point: His campaign depends on doing well in NY State, and there is a machine in this state that will suppress the vote for Bernie. For instance, if you want to change your party to vote for Bernie in April? You needed to do it last year. So independents, like Bernie Sanders himself, can't vote for him, unless of course they had the foresight of changing their registration a year ago. It's a system designed to stop political revolutions, which will likely mean that the viability of his campaign will end in NY. Unless Hillary is indicted, of course. Then, he'll win.

Perhaps conservatives fearing a political revolution should back off HRC, because the other choice is, you know, a Socialist.

geojanes wrote:Yes, I know that won't happen, but it has as much chance of happening as Biden does becoming the nominee. Biden is a moron. Sure, he could possibly win an election, but to be a brokered choice? Never going to happen.

Okay, then who--if they have to break the glass?

I also don't think that Bernie has much of a chance at this point: His campaign depends on doing well in NY State, and there is a machine in this state that will suppress the vote for Bernie. For instance, if you want to change your party to vote for Bernie in April? You needed to do it last year. So independents, like Bernie Sanders himself, can't vote for him, unless of course they had the foresight of changing their registration a year ago. It's a system designed to stop political revolutions, which will likely mean that the viability of his campaign will end in NY. Unless Hillary is indicted, of course. Then, he'll win.

I did not know that re registration. That is quite insightful into the thinking of the Party of NY.

Even if she's indicted, they won't let Bernie get the nomination. No way.

Perhaps conservatives fearing a political revolution should back off HRC, because the other choice is, you know, a Socialist.

Bernie scares me less. He'll be less hawkish. He also is so far removed, fiscally, from what is generally accepted that he'll spend his first four years trying to pass a budget.

Doctor Fate wrote:Bernie scares me less. He'll be less hawkish. He also is so far removed, fiscally, from what is generally accepted that he'll spend his first four years trying to pass a budget.

Ha, that's probably right. I think everyone can see that his instincts for peace, justice, and fairness are genuine and shared by most. There are some real disagreements on how to achieve those goals, of course, but they are values most Americans share. As such, I think he'd be far less inclined to do something very seriously bad.

bbauska

http://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-clinton-email-probe-20160327-story.html

Any changes or nervousness yet, Democrats?

CNN Reports FBI Has Found ‘No Criminal Wrongdoing’ in Hillary Clinton Email ‘Investigation

This wil disappoint some who have unrea;stic expectations.

http://www.mediaite.com/tv/cnn-reports- ... stigation/

My favorite part of this, was something I hadn't seen before, and that was a debunking of the claim that there 147 agents working on this case. Only 12 as it turns out.

http://www.mediaite.com/online/why-didn ... ary-email/

On the other hand Trmps fraud trial is going ahead.Which is going to be a slam dunk for the prosecution since

Justice Kern ruled in 2014 that Trump University never obtained licenses, holding Mr. Trump personally liable. She has yet to determine the damages Mr. Trump must pay.

http://www.wsj.com/articles/trump-unive ... 1461707442

rickyp wrote:This wil disappoint some who have unrea;stic expectations.

http://www.mediaite.com/tv/cnn-reports- ... stigation/

It sounds like they’re really just waiting for Hillary Clinton to be interviewed so they can wrap things up . . .

Hmm, gee, I know it's difficult for you, but let's pretend you can think. If you were conducting an investigation, would you tell the subject of the investigation (the subject is the last person you interview) that there was enough for an indictment before you interviewed her?

Can you say, "Fifth Amendment?"

More from your link:

In recent weeks, multiple aides have been interviewed — some more than once, the officials said. A date for an FBI interview of Clinton has not been set, these officials said, but is expected in the coming weeks. Abedin has cooperated with the probe, the officials said. Lawyers for Abedin declined to comment. The officials say the interviews of Clinton and her aides would be a routine part of an investigation like this.

If all they're looking at is a "security review," they sure are thorough.

On the other hand Trmps fraud trial is going ahead.Which is going to be a slam dunk for the prosecution since

Justice Kern ruled in 2014 that Trump University never obtained licenses, holding Mr. Trump personally liable. She has yet to determine the damages Mr. Trump must pay.

http://www.wsj.com/articles/trump-unive ... 1461707442

Great! I hope they give him life without parole! What a break that would be for the American people--only one liberal fraud running for President instead of two!

Now, you don't know anything other than what your liberal sources say about Hillary. On the other hand, there is growing evidence that she was grossly negligent, which is the criminal standard. Even NBC has reluctantly had to release some info:

White observes: “Somewhat skeptical of Guccifer’s claims, NBC News asked multiple cybersecurity experts to analyze Guccifer’s claims of how he accessed Clinton’s server, and all reportedly concluded that it was possible.” He then quotes from last night’s report:

[A] former FBI special agent who ran major cybersecurity probes found [Guccifer’s] story credible.

NBC News asked Chris Tarbell, who broke open the Silk Road case, to review Lazar’s explanation of how he got into the server.

“It’s plausible,” Chris Tarbell said, adding that Lazar’s conviction for hacking in Romania showed he had the know-how to carry it out.

Tarbell added that he could not imagine why Lazar would make up a claim that could get him in very hot water.

“To go on television and admit to a felony you didn’t commit seems a little silly,” he said.

Tarbell is the legendary former FBI agent specializing in cyber crimes. David Gilbert has hailed him as the Elliot Ness of cyberspace. In addition to Guccifer’s explosive claims, NBC presented Tarbell’s expert opinion that what Guccifer said he did to get into Clinton’s server was entirely plausible.

And then we have this. NBC also reports reaching out to other unnamed cyber security experts who all agreed with Tarbell. That seems worthy of note.

NBC regurgitates the talking point that the Clinton server logs show no evidence of foreign hacking. When correspondent Cynthia McFadden asked Tarbell about that, however, he told her that server logs don’t always show evidence of hacking.

And, again, when the details come out more fully the BEST spin is going to be that Hillary was too dumb to know what she was doing.

Oh, okay, now that we know she's an idiot and careless with intel information, let's elect her President!

Hillary 2016: "She's no smarter than Joe Six-Pack."

Fate

And, again, when the details come out more fully the BEST spin is going to be that Hillary was too dumb to know what she was doing.

Well, whats dumber? beleiving a Rumanian lunatic's claims, despite any corroborating evidence,
or beleiving that a professionally conducted invetigation by a dozen (not 145) FBI agents ?

http://lawnewz.com/high-profile/justice ... s-private/

On the other hand, the offical State department email sstem WAS DEFNITELY hackd...
http://www.cnn.com/2015/03/10/politics/ ... orst-ever/

rickyp wrote:Fate

And, again, when the details come out more fully the BEST spin is going to be that Hillary was too dumb to know what she was doing.

Well, whats dumber? beleiving a Rumanian lunatic's claims, despite any corroborating evidence,
or beleiving that a professionally conducted invetigation by a dozen (not 145) FBI agents ?

http://lawnewz.com/high-profile/justice ... s-private/

On the other hand, the offical State department email sstem WAS DEFNITELY hackd...
http://www.cnn.com/2015/03/10/politics/ ... orst-ever/

Errors...
1st sentence - whats a contraction that should have an apostrophe
1st sentence - Dumber is a comparative between 3 or more items. Should be "more dumb".
2nd sentence - Did not start with a capital letter.
2nd sentence - misspelled beleiving (sic)
2nd sentence - Romanian, not Rumanian
2nd sentence - misspelled beleiving again (sic)
2nd sentence - misspelled invetigation (sic)
3rd sentence - misspelled offical (sic)
3rd sentence - Department should be capitalized
3rd sentence - misspelled sstem (sic)
3rd sentence - misspelled DEFNITELY (sic)
3rd sentence - misspelled hackd

Help me out here, RickyP. Is English your 2nd language? I want to give you some grace on this repetitive issue you have, and am looking for some reason to explain the problem you have. If English is your 2nd language this would make sense. There is no shame in that. Just wondering...

How can I help you?

I have no problem with the errors of grammar / spelling, this is a forum and we often type fast. Give him a break. That said, If he were to use Firefox as his browser (or whatever you call it?), it would at least catch the spelling errors. The problem I have is with him seemingly not having a unique thought of his own. It's pure partisan drivel where he can not come down on anything critical of a liberal issue/person.

Dr Fate is pretty hardcore conservative (I'm not too far behind) but he (and I) have criticism of Republicans, of the Tea Party, etc. We even accept some Democrats have a few good ideas but blindly accepting things can only be the liberal way is a bit much. C'mon, Hillary was foolish in having her own server and her reasons were laughable for wanting it. Can't he even admit that much? She wanted to avoid prying eyes, the Secretary of State simply can not have her own way because her name is Clinton and that's what it boiled down to. Was it foolish? Absolutely! Was it dangerous? Quite possibly! Should she be prosecuted for this? now THAT is where you can make your arguments but to claim this is no big deal and she had good reasons, she isn't lying, she isn't covering her ass, and so on, well, that's just being blind to the facts and doing so really paints him as ignorant/belligerent/stubborn, the typos only reinforce that view!

I understand that we type fast, but to re-read is imperative. I want to know if there is a hindrance to his ability to type in English. No disparagement meant, just wondering.

1st sentence - Dumber is a comparative between 3 or more items. Should be "more dumb".

Dumber and more dumb have exactly the same meaning and can be applied interchangeably. If you're going to be a pedant then you could at least try to be an accurate one.