Kind of hard to believe the Dem candidate would be Bernie if Hillary is deep sixed if the FBI investigation gets her on the emails. There are deadlines for filing and other options wouldn't be able to file in time to win the nomination. Unless they decided on O'Malley. http://www.brookings.edu/blogs/fixg...esidential-filing-deadlines-democrats-kamarck
Which is exactly why Hillary will get away scott-free. Unlike us little people, who'd be making big rocks into little rocks in Leavenworth for doing the same thing. Or even not-quite-as-big people like David Petraeus, who had to resign in disgrace for a considerably smaller breach.
I'm not assuming guilt for Hillary. If you don't trust the FBI ok. Then if she's exonerated you won't believe it.
I'm thinking that if she was going to get nailed on this she wouldn't be running. It's like Whitewater, there's enough smoke to make you suspect a fire but the more you look at it the less she looks likes an arsonist. The problem with analyzing the Clinton's problems is that their enemies are so invested in hating on them that they jump at everything and try and fan the flames. That makes little things seem huge until the moment somebody decides there's really nothing there to prosecute and walks away.
I don't see why people say Hillary would be a disaster. Her husband wasn't and even Trump says he was a good President. He'd be there to advise her and a big part of her administration. If you're a fan of more involvement in the Middle East she's more of a hawk than Obama. As a Senator she at that time worked well with the GOP and was respected on both sides of the aisle. Even if you hate the histrionics is she really that bad a candidate.
I'd be okay with her as President, but if you want resounding impactful change it will be Bernie Sanders but apparently he has no shot.
Idk about your first point. Judging by what we know about hillary, I could definitely see her running for President anyway despite not knowing her fate on the Benghazi emails stuff. Seems very Clinton-like to forge ahead with plans in the face of scandal. Worst case scenario would be she gets the Democratic nomination and then the shit hits the fan with the investigation shortly thereafter. Hello President Trump. were all dicked. Your last point I agree with: they've been wanting a Hillary scandal so badly for years, blowing up even the smallest things that it makes it hard to take serious something that may be a big deal
The likely result is the House Committee will make a case appealing to the GOP base and Clinton haters that she should have done more, whatever that means, to have prevented Benghazi. That argument will mean nothing to Democratic voters, so the real question is whether it will appeal to those in the middle. But as for a shit hitting the fan moment, I think that would have already happened if they had anything.
If only Jim Webb had made Colonel during his military career. A Colonel Sanders ticket would be winner winner chicken dinner.
This kind of hits at the heart of the question. Bill set America on an outsourcing path and then profited tremendously from that decision after he left office by becoming the favored (paid) speaker for the Fortune 500. Hillary sat on the board of Walmart for years when they were grinding the working class (the ones who worked for them) into the ground and leaving local government with a huge burden in the process. They're not really Democrats. They're DINO's.
You were talking about the Koch Bros because you have been told they are the big bad boogey men backing the Reps. You are still clueless, why not focus on the actual big donors. Of the top ten biggest groups and individual donors since 1990 the Koch Bros barely make it in the top 50. The top ten biggest donors in that time frame have overwhelmingly backed Dem. Or liberal candidates. The top six donated $750 million to Dem. or libs with $5 mil going to Reps or conservatives. Top ten gets it to $905M to $108M. The Koch Bros? Less than $30 mil. Why not mention Tom Steger? His Fahr Group had donated twice as much as Koch in that time. And all to Dems., what did he get for his $80 Million? Stop trying to play that you "look at both sides of the issue", you don't even fake that good.
Way to ignore all of that citizens united super pac and dark money contributions past decade... Talk about cherry picking data to make a "point".
It's funny when one side accuses the other side of nefarious activities and effectively claims innocence. It's infantile. _
