The Hill Warns Of Chaos Scenario For Democrats With Clinton Server Under FBI Investigation

Clilnton FBI Investigation

One astonishing characteristic about this presidential race is that Democrats who were justifiably outraged about every violation of the rules and acts to obstruct government transparency under George W. Bush are willing to defend actions which were often worse when committed by Hillary Clinton. Even if they are willing to excuse her actions on partisan/tribal grounds, it is a risky proposition to nominate a candidate whose activities are under FBI investigation. It would be like the Republicans nominating Nixon after the facts about Watergate were known. The Hill considers Clinton’s problems in discussing The Chaos Scenario for Democrats:

It’s the scenario that Republicans dream of and Democrats believe is all but impossible: Hillary Clinton being forced to drop out of the presidential race due to criminal charges over her email server.

Any bombshell findings in the FBI’s investigation of Clinton could plunge the Democratic race into chaos…

In the event that Clinton stepped aside after winning the nomination at the convention, the Democratic National Committee could decide on the replacement on its own.

If an indictment came before the convention, the path would be more difficult.

Unlike the Republican Party, which binds most of its delegates to candidates regardless of delegates’ personal preferences, Democratic candidates have input on who represents them on the convention floor.

“There are no Clinton-bound delegates who would prefer voting for Sanders, for example,” delegate expert and University of Georgia professor Josh Putnam, told The Hill.

“Those folks are essentially hand-picked to be loyal. They are unlikely to stray.”

They discussed options including Sanders winning the nomination based upon his delegate strength, versus party leaders turning to a more establishment candidate:

“The superdelegates would flee first because they are politicians,” said one Democratic strategist who has worked on presidential campaigns.

“They are most likely to feel the pressure not to cast their ballots in favor of a nominee under indictment.”

If enough pledged Clinton delegates and superdelegates went to Sanders and delivered him 2,383 delegates, he would win the nomination.

But delegates could also coalesce around a new candidate not in the race. One likely fallback would be Vice President Biden, who came very close to running for president last year.

But denying Sanders the nomination could come with a heavy price, potentially alienating the millions of Democrats who cast ballots for him in the primary process…

Should the party be forced to leave Clinton, one thing that could work against Sanders is his late arrival to the Democratic Party. He’s spent his entire 30-year career in Congress as an Independent, and recently said he ran for president as a Democrat for media coverage.

“Most of these other politicians and political leaders in the community, they don’t really know Bernie Sanders because he’s never been a national Democrat,” the Democratic strategist said.

“They know Joe [Biden], they know John Kerry. It’s completely conceivable that they would turn from somebody they know and respect — Hillary — to somebody else they know and respect and bypass Sanders.”

This assumes a clear cut result should Clinton be indicted when there is time to chose another candidate. I suspect the outcome of the current investigations might not be so clear cut. The FBI could recommend indictment, but this does not mean that the Obama Justice Department would agree to prosecute. News of such an FBI recommendation would be huge if it were to come out. Is is quite possible that they might see Clinton as too big to prosecute, but she has three top aides in her campaign who also were involved in the handling of classified information under her at the State Department. Clinton might go on as the nominee if one or more of them were indicted, but it could greatly cripple her campaign.

It also must be kept in mind that, while the mishandling of classified information is the most dramatic complaint against her, with others prosecuted for doing less, this is only part of the entire scandal. Her actions included serious breaches of rules to promote government transparency, including new rules instituted under Obama in 2009 in response to the abuses under George W. Bush. Her claims, such as that what she did was allowed, have been repeatedly debunked by the fact checkers. She acted highly unethically in making decisions regarding parties who were either donating to the Foundation or paying unprecedented speaking fees to Bill. She also failed to abide by an agreement to divulge all donors while she was Secretary of State.

Reportedly the FBI has extended its investigation to such conduct at the State Department. Congress is also investigating, and I bet the Republicans will time matters to use this to embarrass Clinton during the general election campaign. It will not be as easy for her to respond to these legitimate concerns as it was to blow off the Benghazi nonsense from Republicans. All of this will provide a tremendous amount of ammunition for the Republican candidate this fall. If Donald Trump could destroy Jeb Bush by calling him low energy, imagine what he might do with actual evidence of unethical behavior by Clinton.

Democrats might wind up wishing that one of the scenarios play out early to allow them to pick a different nominee. Voters in the remaining primaries should also keep in mind that Bernie Sanders does better than Clinton against potential Republican candidates in the polls, and he is not under FBI investigation.

Be Sociable, Share!

28 Comments

  1. 1
    Ray says:

    Yes very interesting Hillary has this problem. Then combined this with the polls showing Bernie Sanders beats Trump in polls by greater numbers then Hillary. Then Sanders gets greater support from younger voters then Hillary.

    Thus with all of this to compare which Presidential Candidate should all of the Democratic Party support? The answer seems obvious to me, but not to the Democratic Party leaders. I wonder why?

  2. 2
    Ron Chusid says:

    Ray, keep in mind that these are the same Democratic leaders who think it is a good idea to run Republican-lite candidates, and who have led the party to losing badly in Congressional and state elections.

  3. 3
    Teddi Stearns says:

    why is it every one of these "scenarios" comments that delegates would go to another Democrat they know and respect?   Its a fact that Bernie Sanders is known and respected by his colleagues…he just is a recent Democrat.  The way the DNC and party leaders are conducting themselves this year is it any wonder that Bernie identifies as Independent?   I forcast a drastic increase in the Independent Party after the nomination is awarded.

     

  4. 4
    Mary says:

    Ray, you said.. its interesting hillary has this problem.. Ray, Hillary has had this email problem since the day she was called into a meeting with the White House and told the Server was a no no.. and she said the meeting is over. that was back in 2014.  The FBI took her server in December 2015. What part of this started way before the campaign, that confuses you? Why are you confused that young people want to live in a world that is closer to the word Fair Treatment for All. We The People. Serve the People. is that difficult, after all they are our children and grandchildren.. Did we not raise them to seek the truth, to soar with the Eagles?                   `

  5. 5
    Don Barkey says:

    Hillary Clinton is far too tainted to be permitted to run for the US Presidency! I am unclear as to why any American would even consider voting for her knowing her very dark past history. Hillary is really nothing more than a pschopathic felon at best with a very warped ideology. Please do not give her a false sense of morality for voting for her! She is not worth it! P.S., you would not vote for Nixon knowing about Watergate?

  6. 6
    Dave says:

    If Clinton should be indicted or so deeply marred by the proceedings and the DNC would chose another candidate other than Bernie Sanders a revolt against the Democratic Party would be certain.   In all likelihood hood Sanders would make an Independent run and win.  It is obvious that the Democratic Primary has been rigged in the Caucasus and state elections as well as the suppression of coverage of the Sanders Campaign in the corporate owned media.

  7. 7
    Bryan Teague says:

    For the integrity of the election, if she's going to be indicted, it had best happen before the Democratic National Convention. Otherwise, and especially if she is chosen as the candidate, it will appear to be a blatant and corrupt attempt for the Republicans to "steal" the election. In any case, whenever it happens, it's going to be ugly. It'll just be a whole lot worse if it happens after the Convention. 

  8. 8
    Feeling the bernb in fla says:

    I feel we are in a high  school popularity contest. Because Hillary  was first lady people know her. The dont know Bernie. They don't know Bernie and Elizabeth Warren went to many ways and means committee meetings and fought for fraudulent foreclosures and to end homelessness they are causing. I feel like they are electing a prom queen instead of president. Bernie needs to explain that. Just because you know her doesn't mean she is the best candidate. They need to research the issues but will not. I had some one say Busch was responsible for thousands of deaths in the middle East when I mentioned. Benghazi. I told him I didn't vote for Busch none of them. I voted for gore. And his point was.  She lied to the family that a video was responsible when we know the truth. Hurtful because I looked her to. I wanted to write her in when Obama ran the first time. But felt it would be a lost vote. So this time if Bernie is not on the ballot we all need to write him in. But we fooling we are going too prevail. Only positive vibes to the universe

  9. 9
    Jason says:

    That's right Mary, we taught our children to seek the truth and the truth is as long as we have bigger government that continues to overspend and over budget everything we will continue to screw out grandchildren's children into paying off the interest of a debt you could never imagine.

  10. 10
    Josh says:

    This isn't the only investigation either. Cynthia McKinney just wrote an article for RT…. this is on top of accusations all over the internet of election and voter fraud from Bill Clinton walking around voting centers campaigning for Hillary and youtube videos about volunteer campaigns being shut down in North Carolina.

    https://www.rt.com/op-edge/335548-us-clinton-elections-president/

  11. 12
    Bill says:

    To "Lfeelin the burn in fla". Which Busch did you actually vote for? Busch Beer? Anheuser-Busch or Busch Lite.( his brother was Bud. 

  12. 13
    Nick says:

    super delegates are fucking lackies; nobody needs them.  Clinton, is a liar, a manipulater and acts worse than a private in the military.  She knows better….  What a joke the FBI has become.  This has become a counterintelligence investigation.  Wake up America, counterintelligence special agents investigate national security crimes.  There are so many people who will vote for trump just so she does not win, myself included, that's how much I hate her.  I mean don't you get it?  People are sick and tired of politicians being immune to the law.  People don't want two decades of bushes and Clintons….

  13. 14
    bunny says:

    These people will never "get" that Bernie supporters are not going to roll over for Hillary. They are probably judging from what they know of Clinton supporters, who do as they are told. Bernie's guys are independent thinkers and will reach their own conclusions. One conclusion most of them have come to is that they will not support another Clinton, ever.

  14. 15
    William Fisher says:

    Look Hillary never activated an official government e-mail account , she used  her own private e-mail server provide by her own company Clinton Executive Services Corporation ( that is not just unethical but illegal ) while Secretary of State . It was illegal because this server  did not have secure government encryption . Server was used for official business , therefore all information passed through that server was public/government . Her former staffer was granted immunity for his testimony , there is already  Federal Grand Jury addressing this . There are some other nasty surprises coming out of this mess which may include influence pedaling , illegal transference of classified or government documents , miss use of funds ……..ect. This is the Demorats Watergate ! I am voting for Bernie Sanders !!!! #StillSanders  !!!!!!!!

     

  15. 16
    Revolt says:

    I really hope that the FBI indicats her soon. I mean, I am positive Bernie will make a come back but it would be much easier to have the FBI knock her corrupt ass out of the way.

  16. 18
    joseph love says:

    the FBI is also investigating corruption pertaining to donations made to the clinton foundation during her term as secretary of state, for political favors etc. such donors include saudi arabia yemen, quatar etc, millions of dollars in foreign donations to a secretary of state. what part of that sounds legal to anyone?!

  17. 19
    Nichoilas says:

    “They know Joe [Biden], they know John Kerry. It’s completely conceivable that they would turn from somebody they know and respect — Hillary — to somebody else they know and respect and bypass Sanders.”

    That idea is insane. Sanders supporters would be livid beyond believe. This scenario has zero chance of happening.

  18. 20
    Josh says:

    When Clinton says "this happens all the time. other people do it too", this is what she's talking about.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bush_White_House_email_controversy

  19. 21
    Josh says:

    Here's a C-SPAN feature with Joseph diGenova, who I think is a former federal prosecutor.

    http://www.c-span.org/video/?406228-4/washington-journal-joseph-digenova-hillary-clintons-emails

  20. 22
    Anonymous says:

    Not voting for her anyway, i voted for Bernie Sanders, if she would be nominee then I'm voting for Trump and so is every other conservatives that were on republican ticket that were going to vote for Bernie. So if they want a blue ticket president, they'll quit cheating, her withdraw because it'd save a lot later or Debbie Shultz is getting Trunp on a silver pkatter. 

  21. 23
    Ron Chusid says:

    Back then Clinton accused the Bush administration for shredding the Constitution for actions like private email. In response, Obama initiated stricter regulations to provide greater transparency. Then Clinton not only violated the new rules, but she went further than the people in the Bush administration.

    She was not only acting unethically and in violation of the regulations–she was acting extremely foolishly. How could she not realize the scrutiny she would be under if she ever ran for president? In one debate she answered that at the time she didn’t know if she would run, but how could she not consider the possibility?

  22. 24
    Gayle McLeod says:

    http://www.wnd.com/2016/03/legendary-u-s-attorney-confident-doj-convened-hillary-grand-jury/  This CSpan interview was mentioned above and had a lot of info we have not heard on the MSM. What diGnova has said we do not hear broadcast in the MSM. HRC is putting out misinformation about that server and emails. (No surprise.)
    What amazed me is she did not have a .gov account.
    She said other have used their private emails. Yes a few have used their private emails, but they had public accounts as gmail, not a private server in their homes.
    She has said the labels do not matter just because they are retro active. It was her duty as SOS to know about the classification of information. When she says they are retro actively classified, like no big deal. What that really means is they were found to have no classification on them and should have been and have been reclassified. She, as SOS, had a duty to understand and know about classification. Classifications are based on the substance of the content.
    There was not just one server but another one, and 4 in the State Department. Anyone who used these with their Blackberry, IPhones or androids had no encryption.

  23. 25
    Ron Chusid says:

    Nichoilas,

    Yes, Sanders supporters would be livid if Clinton is forced to leave the race and the nomination was given to someone like Biden or Kerry. Do you really think the scenario has zero chance? Look at how much party leaders have already tried to rig the system to keep Bernie from winning. I would not put it past them at all to give the nomination to someone else.

    That is another reason why it is important to keep voting for Bernie in the remaining primaries. Even if he cannot mathematically win the nomination as things stand now, the more delegates he has, and the more support he shows he has, the harder it will be to deny him the nomination in the event that legal issues due keep Clinton from taking the nomination. It might be a long shot that Clinton is indicted, but he should continue to try to win delegates regardless of what might happen.

  24. 26
    Ron Chusid says:

    Gayle, that is a key point. The problem is not that Clinton used private email, but that she exclusively used private email (with a private server), and she failed to turn over email sent via private email for archiving as required.

    You are also correct that classification is based upon the context. Reuters has explained how much of the email was “born classified.”

    http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-election-clinton-emails-idUSKCN0QQ0BW20150821

    Plus we know that she instructed someone to remove the headers on one email:

    http://liberalvaluesblog.com/2016/01/08/smoking-gun-in-latest-email-release-could-potentially-end-hillary-clintons-political-career/

  25. 27
    Gayle McLeod says:

    Ron Chusid, there is more to come. Thanks for the links, I had read about the changing of the headers, but had not saved the article. Like the explanation in Reuters. As they say…the plot thickens.

    https://pjmedia.com/trending/2016/03/18/more-trouble-for-hillary-now-nsa-gets-into-the-act/?singlepage=true

  26. 28
    Ron Chusid says:

    Gayle, I would suggest linking to the primary sources as opposed to WND and PJ Media. Clinton apologists already pretty much ignore any facts from mainstream sources and factcheck sites which are negative for Clinton. They certainly are not going to believe conservative sites, and that will reinforce their bogus claims that it is all a right wing plot against her.

    Incidentally, there were two times I held off on doing blog posts because the initial source was from Fox, but Fox's report was later verified by more reliable sources.

    There has also been a lot from right wing sources which I have not substantiated from other sources, and therefore did not use the information. There is plenty of reliable information on Clinton which is incriminating enough without using conservative sources. I am staying away from the predictions that the FBI will be recommending an indictment soon. If they are right and it happens, it will be big news. If they are wrong (which I suspect they are), then it will be better that they aren't quoted. I have my doubts that anyone really knows what the FBI will be doing, and it looks questionable that they will be making any recommendations soon.

Leave a comment