The Briefing Room
General Category => Editorial/Opinion/Blogs => Topic started by: mystery-ak on September 01, 2015, 01:37:53 pm
-
http://www.nationalreview.com/node/423328/print
Conservative Purists Could Cost the GOP the White House in 2016
By Bernard Goldberg — September 1, 2015
In the late 1970s, TV Guide ran a poll to find out which sportscaster fans liked the most and which one they disliked the most. Howard Cosell finished first in both categories. Which brings us to Donald Trump, another loud, over-the-top, brash personality.
According to the latest Quinnipiac University national poll, when Republicans were asked who they would vote for if the primary for president were held today, Trump finished first. When asked who they definitely would not support for the nomination, the very same Donald Trump finished first again.
Being a polarizing figure didn’t hurt Howard Cosell. Even people who said they didn’t like him tuned in to watch the game — and, truth be told, to watch him, too. But politics is different. In that arena, you can get away with being polarizing after you win the election — Barack Obama is proof of that. But polarizing pols have a tough time winning in the first place; the math doesn’t add up.
So, if these were normal times, the numbers would be bad news for The Donald. But these are not normal times. Pundits who are still confidently saying he can’t win the nomination are the same ones who said he’d never get this far. Or to put it another way: The smarties aren’t as smart as they think they are.
When voters were asked what the first word was that came to mind when they thought of Donald Trump, respondents said “arrogant,” followed by “blowhard” and “idiot.”
And when voters were asked what the first word was that came to mind when they thought of Hillary Clinton, they said “liar,” followed by “dishonest” and “untrustworthy.”
Note well: These two are the front-runners! Rodney Dangerfield got more respect.
So which party is in more trouble? You can make a case that it’s the Republicans.
While 26 percent of Republicans say they would never vote for Trump, only 11 percent of Democrats say they would never vote for Clinton. Democrats don’t have the same kind of ideologically pure wing that has hurt GOP presidential candidates in the past. Democrats, it seems, are more practical. They may prefer Bernie Sanders, or one of the others, but when push comes to shove, almost all of them will vote for Clinton. Why? They want to win.
I recently received an e-mail from someone named Carl who described himself as a conservative Christian, and he wrote, “I have voted Republican since Eisenhower beat Stevenson, and if Jeb, Christie, Kasich, or Graham are nominated, I WILL STAY HOME!”
Carl is not alone. I received similar e-mails during the last two presidential campaigns and millions of the ideologically pure — who normally would vote Republican — did in fact sit home, if not handing the elections to Barack Obama, at least making it a lot easier for him to win.
These purists have told me that there’s little or no difference between a moderate Republican and a liberal Democrat. They’re delusional, of course, blinded by their hard-right ideology, but that’s what they believe nonetheless. And depending on who the GOP nominee is, they could represent big trouble for the party.
Finally, consider this: In the last six presidential elections, 18 states have voted for the Democratic candidate every time, totaling 242 electoral votes — just 28 short of victory. That means Democrats are about 90 percent of the way to winning the White House even before the actual voting begins.
Of course, anything can happen. Technically, history tells us only about the past. But it’s often a good indicator of what lies ahead.
So if Republicans hope to win in 2016, they will have to unite and support the GOP candidate whoever he or she is. Republicans, who today are vowing to never support Donald Trump, will have to reconsider, should he win the nomination. And the conservative purists, who swear they will never vote for a moderate, will have to abandon their ideological purity — or abandon all hope of a GOP victory.
This won’t be easy. But it’s the only thing certain in this summer of uncertainty.
-
"will have to abandon their ideological purity — or abandon all hope of a GOP victory"
Kinda sanctimonious aren't we?
So anything for a GOP victory even if it means electing a spineless liberal as long as the GOP wins, nothing else matters.
-
"will have to abandon their ideological purity — or abandon all hope of a GOP victory"
Kinda sanctimonious aren't we?
So anything for a GOP victory even if it means electing a spineless liberal as long as the GOP wins, nothing else matters.
:patriot:
The two-party system is a freaky thing, isn't it?
-
Supposedly "conservatism" is mainly about high principles. Then along comes Trump, and principles go out the window
Several successful governors who have conservative records are now dubbed "spineless liberals."
-
Anti-Trumpers, ask yourself this: Who are the top three candidates coming out of this latest Monmouth university Iowa poll? Carson, Trump, Fiorina. All three, political outsiders.
The GOP needs to be afraid, be very afraid.
-
Anti-Trumpers, ask yourself this: Who are the top three candidates coming out of this latest Monmouth university Iowa poll? Carson, Trump, Fiorina. All three, political outsiders.
The GOP needs to be afraid, be very afraid.
According to the latest Quinnipiac University national poll, when Republicans were asked who they would vote for if the primary for president were held today, Trump finished first. When asked who they definitely would not support for the nomination, the very same Donald Trump finished first again.
You say "anti-Trumpers". All three would probably loose to a typical Dem in a typical season but only Trump would loose the "conservative purists" along with a lot of others.
-
According to the latest Quinnipiac University national poll, when Republicans were asked who they would vote for if the primary for president were held today, Trump finished first. When asked who they definitely would not support for the nomination, the very same Donald Trump finished first again.
You say "anti-Trumpers". All three would probably loose to a typical Dem in a typical season but only Trump would loose the "conservative purists" along with a lot of others.
I disagree. You're dead wrong about any of them losing to "a typical dem."
The Democratic Party is reeling after seven years of Barack "the human wrecking ball" Obama and they are about to lose their front runner to a criminal indictment.
So who's next in line? Bernie "Das Capital" Sanders? Joe "dumbest VP ever" Biden? Martin "empty suit" O'Malley? Elizabeth "Pocahontis" Warren?
Do yourself a favor, bkepley, don't lose any sleep.
-
I disagree. You're dead wrong about any of them losing to "a typical dem."
The Democratic Party is reeling after seven years of Barack "the human wrecking ball" Obama and they are about to lose their front runner to a criminal indictment.
So who's next in line? Bernie "Das Capital" Sanders? Joe "dumbest VP ever" Biden? Martin "empty suit" O'Malley? Elizabeth "Pocahontis" Warren?
Do yourself a favor, bkepley, don't lose any sleep.
Yes they elected and re-elected Obama. Anyway hopefully Trump will not get the nomination and Hillary's shenanigans will mean that the Dems won't be running a typical Dem.
-
"will have to abandon their ideological purity — or abandon all hope of a GOP victory"
Kinda sanctimonious aren't we?
So anything for a GOP victory even if it means electing a spineless liberal as long as the GOP wins, nothing else matters.
Stupid, whiney GOPe types. They preach you have to consider party first. Anything to win, because you can't do anything unless you win.
Ok, they won, and did nothing.
Trump wouldn't pass any conservative "purity test". Trump doesn't even come close. But, the base who favors Trump is ignoring that. Why? Did they suddenly lose the ability to figure out who is conservative and who isn't? Obviously not. Trump is direct, energetic, and unafraid. Trump stands by what he says, and doesn't parse every single sentence in an effort to avoid hurting anyone's feelings.
This GOPe bleating is getting tiresome.
-
Trump stands by what he says
No Trump says what he thinks works best for him. Like his buddy Sharpton.
-
Supposedly "conservatism" is mainly about high principles. Then along comes Trump, and principles go out the window
Several successful governors who have conservative records are now dubbed "spineless liberals."
Those governors are not liberals. They are just dull, flat and will never capture the imagination of the voters. You cannot be milquetoast and win a national election today. The Rove world is in the past.
-
Supposedly "conservatism" is mainly about high principles. Then along comes Trump, and principles go out the window
Several successful governors who have conservative records are now dubbed "spineless liberals."
I'm done with politicians who wear their conservatism on their sleeves and then when give an opportunity, do nothing with it.
DONE!
And just as they tell us what happened in 2012...millions will stay home rather than vote for the Nominee because they don't meet certain standards on the Conservatism scale.
Sinkspur! This means YOU, buddy. And anymore in here of a like mindset.
-
What makes Trump supporters believe he will do the things he says he'll do? What if he's lying? What if he really is a mole sent to disrupt and divide?
-
What makes Trump supporters believe he will do the things he says he'll do? What if he's lying? What if he really is a mole sent to disrupt and divide?
It's not about that. Except for the illegals who knows what he has said he would do? It's that he is loud, rude and un-PC. There's nothing behind it all and folks will tire of him.
-
and folks will tire of him.
I wonder about that.
-
Those governors are not liberals. They are just dull, flat and will never capture the imagination of the voters. You cannot be milquetoast and win a national election today. The Rove world is in the past.
So it is no longer about principles and policies, but instead about personalities.
Policies like Kelo case - eminent domain - taking of property, are just fine if it is our cult hero doing the taking?
Mega rich developers claiming bankruptcy when the deal sours, through legalistic use of multiple entities, maxing tax advantages, so long as it is our cult hero?
Dodging the draft, because father is rich, to later become our cult hero?
I don't trust the guy. I accept he may win the nomination. Possibly the Presidency.
I think more probable is an embarrassment to both conservatism and the GOP. (And if that occurs, it will be evidence of my own thesis regarding conservativism become gullible, anti-intellectual and low information.)
My ears will be tuned, to hear "constitutional" expert lawyers Cruz and Levin, defend Trump on taking private property for private benefit.
-
What makes Trump supporters believe he will do the things he says he'll do? What if he's lying? What if he really is a mole sent to disrupt and divide?
I'd like to respond.
Just take a look at Trump's work habits. He doesn't just talk--he gets things done. He has an easily examined history of accomplishments.
Plus, he has a wide circle of acquaintances, friends, many in positions of power and authority, who say that despite his great wealth, he is a down-to-earth guy who says what he means and means what he says--and with the strong strain of pragmatism in his DNA, which helps him to get past all the petty political ideological crap, and seek solutions.
-
I'd like to respond.
Just take a look at Trump's work habits. He doesn't just talk--he gets things done. He has an easily examined history of accomplishments.
Plus, he has a wide circle of acquaintances, friends, many in positions of power and authority, who say that despite his great wealth, he is a down-to-earth guy who says what he means and means what he says--and with the strong strain of pragmatism in his DNA, which helps him to get past all the petty political ideological crap, and seek solutions.
You are saying a lot here...any sources?
-
I'm done with politicians who wear their conservatism on their sleeves and then when give an opportunity, do nothing with it.
How much more do you expect those governors to do in their terms?
Do you want to see them balance the budget, or do a funny skit on television? If entertainment is the goal, Trump certainly provides that.
A win in Nov. 2016 I'm very skeptical about.
-
You are saying a lot here...any sources?
Sources? I don't need no stinkin' sources. All I stated was the obvious, it's as plain as the nose on your face. (You do have a nose on your face don't you?)
-
What makes Trump supporters believe he will do the things he says he'll do? What if he's lying? What if he really is a mole sent to disrupt and divide?
So, if Trump is elected he may not do what is expected? Kind of like the GOP controlled Congress?
Ok, so where is the risk?
-
Sources? I don't need no stinkin' sources. All I stated was the obvious, it's as plain as the nose on your face. (You do have a nose on your face don't you?)
I would like to read more Trump, his accomplishments, his wide circle of friends etc. Is that too much to ask?
What are his accomplishments? Are they quite remarkable given he started out with a large fortune? What about all the bankruptcies etc. Who are some of his friends and what do they say about him? What about enemies? I'm sure he's made quite a few. Just breathing out vaporous praise of the man does not mean anything.
-
I would like to read more Trump, his accomplishments, his wide circle of friends etc. Is that too much to ask?
What are his accomplishments? Are they quite remarkable given he started out with a large fortune? What about all the bankruptcies etc. Who are some of his friends and what do they say about him? What about enemies? I'm sure he's made quite a few. Just breathing out vaporous praise of the man does not mean anything.
Luckily I'm off this afternoon, so I have the time:
He's built skyscrapers all over the world.
He added substantially to the fortune that was left him.
Trump Entertainment Resorts has filed for corporate bankruptcy four times, in 1991. That makes 4 of his over 700 companies that declared bankruptcy. For example, Trump Plaza Atlantic City was having problems at the same time that MGM Grand Hotel and Casino, Sands Casino Hotels, and a couple others also went bankrupt in Atlantic city.
Mark Simone, Larry King, Steve Forbes. The list of friends and acquaintances is huge, and it's silly for me to have to run this list by you. But I'll play along. They say he's a regular Joe despite his billions.
Trump has had 100,000 employees (over the years). There have been no major scandals or accusations of unfair treatment, sexual harassment or anything like that, from his past or present employees. In fact, women do well in his corporation and many say the monies good work for Trump.
Anything else you'd like?
-
Luckily I'm off this afternoon, so I have the time:
He's built skyscrapers all over the world.
He added substantially to the fortune that was left him.
Trump Entertainment Resorts has filed for corporate bankruptcy four times, in 1991. That makes 4 of his over 700 companies that declared bankruptcy. For example, Trump Plaza Atlantic City was having problems at the same time that MGM Grand Hotel and Casino, Sands Casino Hotels, and a couple others also went bankrupt.
Mark Simone, Larry King, Steve Forbes. The list of friends and acquaintances is huge, and it's silly for me to have to run this list by you. But I'll play along. They say he's a regular Joe despite his billions.
Trump has had 100,000 employees (over the years). There have been no major scandals or accusations of unfair treatment, sexual harassment or anything like that, from his past or present employees.
Anything else you'd like?
I was asking for a source, not your opinions and beliefs because I have not read anything at all about him. All I know is what I see of him which is all negative. You seem to know a lot about him. Surely you weren't just born with that knowledge?
-
So it is no longer about principles and policies, but instead about personalities.
Republicans have enough built-in disadvantages in a national election today. Whether it be demographics or generational tastes, social tastes, a hostile media, hostile urban population centers or the facts that fewer pay taxes and many, many - most even - love their government benefits, government jobs, government contracts or plain old government largesse.
Republicans are up against it everywhere you turn in a national election. The left's built in social and demographic advantages in a national election are immense. If you put Republicans up with the personality and fervor of a Bush, McConnell, Kasich or Romney...if you put up an insider, someone in the Washington game...you will get beaten every single time. There is no reason whatsoever for masses of voters to get energized to take out the Washington establishment by one of its own, the same old same old.
You need to create a movement, create passion and fire on the Republican side or you will simply be crushed under the weight of your disadvantages and the establishment. They'll go with the Democrat promising stuff or speaking the latest social cause language that appeals to them...because the Republican is the same old guy with a different name who doesn't fire their imagination or give them any reason to change.
-
I was asking for a source, not your opinions and beliefs because I have not read anything at all about him. All I know is what I see of him which is all negative. You seem to know a lot about him. Surely you weren't just born with that knowledge?
Not playing that game with you. Do you own research. Of course, you won't.
-
Not playing that game with you. Do you own research. Of course, you won't.
I'm not playing games either. You seem to know a lot about him. I thought you might have a source.
-
What makes Trump supporters believe he will do the things he says he'll do? What if he's lying? What if he really is a mole sent to disrupt and divide?
Dex, I have to go back and review what I know for a fact to help eliminate alternatives to solutions to make some of these more complicated decisions and the biggest fact is bush and the rest will not only NOT do what they say, they will do nothing at all.
So I am willing to take a chance that Trump/Cruz/Perry will do what they say, and if not, then I am no worse off than had I pushed the others.
-
What do Trump supporters think of Trump's chances against Hillary? Many leftists are crossing their fingers hoping Republicans are (as they see it) foolish enough to nominate Trump. They believe that would guarantee a win for them.
-
What do Trump supporters think of Trump's chances against Hillary? Many leftists are crossing their fingers hoping Republicans are (as they see it) foolish enough to nominate Trump. They believe that would guarantee a win for them.
Trump can beat a very wounded Hillary but otherwise would have no chance. My opinion.
-
What do Trump supporters think of Trump's chances against Hillary? Many leftists are crossing their fingers hoping Republicans are (as they see it) foolish enough to nominate Trump. They believe that would guarantee a win for them.
I never listen to fortune tellers, especially socialist ones.. :)
-
I never listen to fortune tellers, especially socialist ones.. :)
It's no secret that you have to appeal to a significant number of moderates and independents if you're going to win a presidential election. Do you think Trump can do that?
-
It's no secret that you have to appeal to a significant number of moderates and independents if you're going to win a presidential election. Do you think Trump can do that?
I don't wrap myself around the axle trying to predict what other people will do or believe, I simply don't have the bandwidth to run everyone else life, I have my hands full running mine.
All I can do is hope they put country first and vote accordingly.
-
I don't wrap myself around the axle trying to predict what other people will do or believe, I simply don't have the bandwidth to run everyone else life, I have my hands full running mine.
All I can do is hope they put country first and vote accordingly.
Sticking to your convictions is admirable, but sometimes it ends with your side going down in flames. I believe it to be a matter of fact that other candidates would stand a much better chance of winning.
-
Sticking to your convictions is admirable, but sometimes it ends with your side going down in flames. I believe it to be a matter of fact that other candidates would stand a much better chance of winning.
You may be right, but what will I have won? Bragging rights?
This will likely be my last shot at making sure my grand kids have at least a reasonable chance at a normal country and I am not going to place that bet on bush, et al.
-
You may be right, but what will I have won? Bragging rights?
This will likely be my last shot at making sure my grand kids have at least a reasonable chance at a normal country and I am not going to place that bet on bush, et al.
I wish more Republicans liked Rand Paul. I believe he would crush Hillary and go on to be one of the best presidents this country has seen in a long time.
-
I wish more Republicans liked Rand Paul. I believe he would crush Hillary and go on to be one of the best presidents this country has seen in a long time.
You're a liberal "Republican". While it's your opinion, most of us find Rand Paul to be lacking.
-
I wish more Republicans liked Rand Paul. I believe he would crush Hillary and go on to be one of the best presidents this country has seen in a long time.
I was interested in Rand Paul at one time but he doesn't seem very interested in being president and I'm not sure he has the personality for the job.
-
I wish more Republicans liked Rand Paul. I believe he would crush Hillary and go on to be one of the best presidents this country has seen in a long time.
The only problem I have with both Pauls is they are isolationists and I think that is exactly what we don't need.
I do like most of his domestic positions.
-
What do Trump supporters think of Trump's chances against Hillary? Many leftists are crossing their fingers hoping Republicans are (as they see it) foolish enough to nominate Trump. They believe that would guarantee a win for them.
If the election was tomorrow, Trump would win hands down. yet it is not and way to much time and things will change by then. I like Trump, just don't know if I would vote for him at this time in the game.
-
It's no secret that you have to appeal to a significant number of moderates and independents if you're going to win a presidential election. Do you think Trump can do that?
If I may interject, heck yeah. Trump draws from Republicans, both conservative and moderate; Democrats, mostly moderates; and independents of every stripe.
-
If the election was tomorrow, Trump would win hands down. yet it is not and way to much time and things will change by then. I like Trump, just don't know if I would vote for him at this time in the game.
I have serious doubts about Trump, but I can say without reservation that I will vote for him if he is the nominee.
-
I have serious doubts about Trump, but I can say without reservation that I will vote for him if he is the nominee.
I have no doubts he would do a good job as president.
But, I would like to see Fiorina or Cruz or Carson on the ticket though.
-
I have serious doubts about Trump, but I can say without reservation that I will vote for him if he is the nominee.
To be very honest TS... I have serious doubts about all of them... and this probably is the most critical election we have had in my lifetime.
The other piece to the puzzle is what will happen to congress. If we cannot retain a GOP congress, then it may not matter who is in the whitehouse.
To screw things up even more, what happens if Trump wins and the gop retains the house and senate? are they going to support him or carry a grudge?
If you work all the angles it gets really messy.
-
Electoral math is a (bleep), ain't it?
Why do you think I think a Rubio/Kasich (or vice-versa) ticket is the best chance we have for victory?
It gives us Florida and Ohio from the get-go. Making it much easier for us to get to the White House.
-
I disagree. You're dead wrong about any of them losing to "a typical dem."
The Democratic Party is reeling after seven years of Barack "the human wrecking ball" Obama and they are about to lose their front runner to a criminal indictment.
So who's next in line? Bernie "Das Capital" Sanders? Joe "dumbest VP ever" Biden? Martin "empty suit" O'Malley? Elizabeth "Pocahontis" Warren?
Do yourself a favor, bkepley, don't lose any sleep.
You do realize that no criminal investigation has been launched into Clinton's actions?
One can hope, but I'm not going to bet on hope. We've had 'hope' for the last eight years. And it got us change, all right.
-
Scott wrote above:
[[ Republicans are up against it everywhere you turn in a national election. The left's built in social and demographic advantages in a national election are immense. If you put Republicans up with the personality and fervor of a Bush, McConnell, Kasich or Romney...if you put up an insider, someone in the Washington game...you will get beaten every single time. There is no reason whatsoever for masses of voters to get energized to take out the Washington establishment by one of its own, the same old same old. ]]
An important line from the original article above:
"Finally, consider this: In the last six presidential elections, 18 states have voted for the Democratic candidate every time, totaling 242 electoral votes — just 28 short of victory. That means Democrats are about 90 percent of the way to winning the White House even before the actual voting begins."
Leonard Cohen:
Things are going to slide,
Slide in all directions
Won't be nothing,
Nothing you can measure any more...
...I've seen the future, baby, it is murder.
Trump or no, I sense that time is slowly runnin' out for Republicans in general, but even moreso for folks who consider themselves "traditional Americans" and who steadfastly embrace "the old ways".
We are becoming outnumbered, literally, by others who are "not like us" and (because of racial/ethnic demographics) who are NEVER going to become like us or embrace the values and principles that kept this country going for two-and-a-quarter centuries.
There's just too much water over that dam now.
There are too many "aliens" who've breached the gates.
It would be easy if we could point fingers and place the blame. You're probably thinking "it's the left that did this to us!".
Nope. We did it to ourselves.
By -tolerating- the left for too long, by permitting them to become too powerful.
By standing by while our own government turned against us.
By permitting the robed members of the courts to elevate themselves to become rulers, when in truth their role is to issue "opinions", and not "laws".
And... by tolerating the malfeasance of our own elected representatives (of our own party) who despite their positions of power will do nothing to halt the collapse.
I wish I had more to write about whether Trump is going to "make the difference" or not, but...
I've seen the future, and it's murder.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vnaxvBsyigM&ab_channel=GioGreen
-
It's kind of funny that Goldberg calls Trump supporters Conservative Purists when Trump is a liberal on issues of spending, taxes, regulation, and freedom.
-
You do realize that no criminal investigation has been launched into Clinton's actions?
One can hope, but I'm not going to bet on hope. We've had 'hope' for the last eight years. And it got us change, all right.
The FBI doesn't pay social calls. Hillary Clinton has been under criminal probe since early August. They took possession of her server because she's under investigation for possible top secret security leaks and most likely obstruction of justice. And before this is over, there may also be charges related to quid pro quo criminality as Secretary of State and possible tax code violations.
After months of resisting a subpoena she scrubbed the server clean before turning it over to the FBI. That sounds like a criminal probe is under way to me and even to Hillary herself by her actions, and to several other sources as reported in the papers, including the New York Post and New York Times.
-
Just wanted to bump this to see if anyone still believes that Hillary is not under criminal investigation?
-
Just wanted to bump this to see if anyone still believes that Hillary is not under criminal investigation?
I don't believe it for a minute.
...because it's the Barack Obama FBI/CIA and DOJ. That's why!
The Heavyweight Champions of the "Slow Roll".
-
http://www.nationalreview.com/article/422050/hillary-clinton-email-scandal-criminal-prosecution
Unless somethings changed in the last week or so, it doesn't look like there is a criminal investigation underway as yet.
-
http://www.nationalreview.com/article/422050/hillary-clinton-email-scandal-criminal-prosecution
Unless somethings changed in the last week or so, it doesn't look like there is a criminal investigation underway as yet.
Hate to burst your bubble but the only kind of investigations the FBI does is CRIMINAL investigations!
-
Hate to burst your bubble but the only kind of investigations the FBI does is CRIMINAL investigations!
No, they do quite a bit more than that.
-
No, they do quite a bit more than that.
NO! They do not! They investigate CRIMINAL matters only!
-
NO! They do not! They investigate CRIMINAL matters only!
https://www.fbi.gov/about-us/quick-facts
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Bureau_of_Investigation
-
https://www.fbi.gov/about-us/quick-facts
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Bureau_of_Investigation
And they only investigate CRIMES that fall under their jurisdiction!
http://nypost.com/2015/08/05/fbi-investigation-of-hillarys-emails-is-criminal-probe/
http://www.thenewamerican.com/usnews/crime/item/21485-fbi-a-team-conducting-criminal-investigation-of-hillary-s-e-mail
http://townhall.com/tipsheet/guybenson/2015/08/07/report-yes-the-fbis-investigation-into-hillarys-email-is-a-criminal-probe-n2035654
-
And they only investigate CRIMES that fall under their jurisdiction!
http://nypost.com/2015/08/05/fbi-investigation-of-hillarys-emails-is-criminal-probe/
http://www.thenewamerican.com/usnews/crime/item/21485-fbi-a-team-conducting-criminal-investigation-of-hillary-s-e-mail
http://townhall.com/tipsheet/guybenson/2015/08/07/report-yes-the-fbis-investigation-into-hillarys-email-is-a-criminal-probe-n2035654
From your own sources:
“The DOJ [Department of Justice] and FBI can conduct civil investigations in very limited circumstances,” but that’s not what this is, the source stressed. “In this case, a security violation would lead to criminal charges. Maybe DOJ is trying to protect her campaign.”
Now apply some logic. She is a Democrat. The President is a Democrat. His Attorney General reflects that.
It will take the Attorney General to prosecute.
Ergo, it's not happening.
(Which is different than saying it should happen, which I do think. I just recognize that this administration will probably not do it.)
-
The FBI doesn't pay social calls. Hillary Clinton has been under criminal probe since early August. They took possession of her server because she's under investigation for possible top secret security leaks and most likely obstruction of justice. And before this is over, there may also be charges related to quid pro quo criminality as Secretary of State and possible tax code violations.
After months of resisting a subpoena she scrubbed the server clean before turning it over to the FBI. That sounds like a criminal probe is under way to me and even to Hillary herself by her actions, and to several other sources as reported in the papers, including the New York Post and New York Times.
Maybe, but at the end of the day it'll be "A funny thing happened on the way to the indictment" - a lot of tut-tutting and frowny looks, but no indictment.