Question to Bernie supporters: will you call on Republicans to impeach President Clinton?

[brooklynite]

From what I'm reading lately, you think the email story rises to the level of disqualifying incompetence, if not criminal activity. If Clinton gets elected, will you have the courage of your convictions and call for her impeachment?

[JoePhilly]

3. +1

[KingFlorez]

5. They should will be batting a zero average this cycle

[geek tragedy]

11. 18 more days nt

[geek tragedy]

16. your wish doesn't trump the votes of a majority of Democrats, nt

[geek tragedy]

18. tinfoil conspiracy theories are not factual arguments nt

[LuvLoogie]

53. It seems that your mind is so free it has left you...

or maybe it has just taken a vacation.

[Darb]

25. Don't you know geek, Hillary has control of the machines.

Except when she lets the Repubes have control during the mid-terms. They share the access.

[LuvLoogie]

57. And I, her one-eyed minion, vote early and often...

[rock]

48. But to whine about one that isn't rigged

Is a sore loser. And that is what we have here.

[frylock]

36. Brocktastic!

[NCTraveler]

45. +1 nt

[SmittynMo]

2. Call on republicans?

I'm pretty sure that won't be necessary. Facts usually generate impeachment all by itself.

[Yurovsky]

68. Exactly. Nixon was done when his party realized he was a crook...

If facts demonstrate HRC broke the law, after a presumed Clinton victory in November, I would hope that all members of the House would vote to impeach and the Seante trial would produce a conviction. I would hope for the same result if Bernie won and was determined to have committed high crimes and misdemeanors.

The law should apply to EVERYONE. Breaking the law shouldn't be ignored simply because the lawbreaker shares your party affiliation.

[Katashi_itto]

4. Nobody has to. She dug that hole herself.

[0rganism]

7. if HRC becomes the president, there won't be any calling necessary

the GOP-controlled house probably already has draft versions for the articles of impeachment they'll roll out in February 2017. i was hoping for Democratic control of the senate, but if HRC becomes even less popular her coat tails are going to shrink commensurately. still hoping for 45+ which should prevent removal from office.

not really a SBS supporter myself, but your question seemed... redundant.

[Txbluedog]

21. As a Hillary supporter

I am pretty confident that the republicans in the house will file impeachment proceeding while she is still delivering her Inaguration address, after all they have a well earned reputation as obstuctionists to live up to

[emulatorloo]

8. Just saw a long-time poster cite JONAH FUCKING GOLDBERG

as some kind of "truth teller."

Happily quickly hidden although got some positive me-too type support before it was gone.

That being said, don't confuse real world supporters w posters on an anonymous internet board

Were you around in 2014 and the "Great Reveal" on election night? Not everybody on DU is who they say they are.

FWIW I actually sorta think this poster's acct has been hacked.

[mmonk]

9. We're trying to avoid all that by winning.

[geek tragedy]

13. too late, now it's just 18 more days of acting out nt

[Darb]

22. Is it that long?

Damn, I vom daily coming here.

[geek tragedy]

24. Last primary vote is D.C. on June 14. If Sanders doesn't concede before then,

this place will stop being a haven for Trump and Nader types as of that date.

[Darb]

28. Promise?

Will Skinner shut them down? This is fucking pathetic.

[geek tragedy]

33. yep, jury system allowed this place to turn into an extension of Breitbart

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1251&pid=2068565

[Darb]

35. Agreed.

I had a post pulled just a little while ago. "No explanation given" mostly.

[geek tragedy]

37. whenever I find myself writing something inflammatory, I go back and replace it with "18 more days"

Tomorrow, it will be "17 more days"

[Darb]

40. Can I use it?

Don't mean to be a copycat, but I am pissed off and riding that line.

[geek tragedy]

42. Yes, I think we should all do it, until the Great Enema occurs nt

[blackspade]

39. Jesus fuck, dude. Did socialists steal your lunch money as a child?

You diminish the Democratic party and your chosen candidate with these childish outbursts.
Talk about "acting out"

[Darb]

41. Wrong.

Jussayin'. Apparently, you cannot see it. We can. It is pathetic.

[geek tragedy]

43. there's nothing socialist about pimping Breitbart and NY Post stories about eGhazi.

It's not the socialism, it's the rightwing crapola and obvious attempts to help Trump vis a vis Clinton.

[Henhouse]

66. I think he/she just wanted an opportunity to use the "did a socialist steal your lunch" line....N/t

[SidDithers]

10. Doubt they will...

but they'll gleefully be shouting "SHE'S DONE!!" if it the Republicans do.

Sid

[aikoaiko]

61. As in "Stick a fork in her. She's done."

I've seen that somewhere.

[PufPuf23]

12. When is Hillary Clinton to be interviewed by the FBI?

Need to tell truth talking to FBI.

[imagine2015]

14. She can't beat Trump if running so the question should be will Sanders support impeachment of Trump?

YES!

Of course .... and prison time for any criminal operations and activity uncovererd.

But again, Clinton would actually have to capture the nomination.

And with a Trump loss tof Bernie we'll be just fine.

[findrskeep]

49. Nice!

And yes, we'll be better than fine.

[masmdu]

19. Yes. If she broke the law.

[JackRiddler]

23. Question for you.

When Clinton launches a first-strike nuclear war on Russia, will you support it?

Not that this will happen, but as long as your are acting like a cheap partisans and asking leading questions to provoke stupid responses, why not?

Jury, be fair!

[lagomorph777]

26. No, we will ask President Sanders to pardon her.

So we can get on with restoring the middle class.

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

27. Don't be ridiculous.

[merrily]

29. No sense crossing that bridge until after we see who the new President is.

[ucrdem]

30. She's stumbling badly here in CA.

A real trainwreck.

[senz]

31. LOL!

Nice try.

[floriduck]

32. Nah, we'll just vote her out in 2020, proceedings or not.

[JonLeibowitz]

34. I don't understand impeaching a president based on info the American ppl knew when they voted

However, if Clinton lies to the FBI and this is proven then she should be impeached. Of course, that is a lot of hypotheticals. So for now I'll say "No"

[cali]

38. Dumb.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

44. If she's indicted for crimes, or convicted of crimes, I'd call on the Democrats to impeach her.

[NCTraveler]

46. Question to you.

Do you think a majority of those you are addressing are even Sanders supporters?

I don't think so. We are rapidly becoming a site welcoming to scum like Fox News, Judicial Watch, National Review, Brietbart, etc. It's overwhelmingly coming from "Sanders" supporters.

Their desperation is either off the charts or they are in Trumps corner.

[chknltl]

62. At start of primaries DU was 90% Bernie.

2 different polls, one while we had 3 candidates and the second when we had only 2 had Bernie favored 9 to Hillary's 1. I suppose, despite all the vitriol, Hillary's poll numbers may have improved around here.

Perhaps you might try a new poll to see if the numbers or especially the names have changed significantly.

[NCTraveler]

63. I'm not sure how that would confirm my thoughts. Nt

[chknltl]

64. Cross check names with time as DUer.

If majority are new DUers this adds a line of argument for, if majority are long time DUers this adds line of argument against what you say.

The longer the membership the less likely they are to be disruptors from outside the Democratic Party.

Where it is easy for us at DU to point out that the Republican Party is Of/By/For highest bidders, that it does not serve the majority interests of it's voting electorate, we IMO, can not seem to agree that this condition now infects our own party. IMO we 90% are not employed to be disruptors, we fight against the finalising of the hostile takeover of our government by the powers of greed.

[libtodeath]

47. If it was proved to be fact would Hillary supporters?

[B Calm]

50. Dumb!

[Scootaloo]

51. Another useful contribution from Brooklynite

[leftinportland]

52. Pretty sure we

won't have to...they'll do it all on their own.

[gordianot]

54. As a Democrat why would I want a Democratic President impeached?

[HooptieWagon]

56. No need. They'll do it regardless. Nt

[ancianita]

58. If Colin Powell did it, so can Hill. With no legal wrongdoing precedent, that move will go nowhere.

[IdaBriggs]

71. Colin Powell did NOT have a private server, attempt to evade FOIA,

keep government records in his basement after he left office, fail to report someone without security clearance having access to classified information or have a spouse accepting money from foreign governments while he was Secretary of State.

[ancianita]

73. Fair points. This argument can't be used by a yuuge fraudulent opponent who's a more dishonest

fraud against tens of thousands of investors, communities and employees than a secretary of state who has not caused any risk to national security. If she had, there would be a hint of this. It will be the clues that Obama drops that tell us if she deserves indictment.

Classified info throughout this government has never been the boss of any Secretary of State. That's the kind of power they have.

[IdaBriggs]

76. A criminal indictment against Hillary has nothing to do with Bernie.

And you are incorrect about the risks to national security; Time Magazine already did one story quoting from a highly placed official dealing with operations in the Phillapines that stopped having problems when Hillary's team was no longer informed about planned missions.

That is one known example, with the fact the hacker Guccifer was able to post the name of an operative on the internet being another because of the Blumenthal issue. We may not be alive by the time the full extent of the damage is revealed due to the national security concerns (7 chains of 22 were deemed to pose a beyind Top Secret risk and she told them to "show everyone" in a total "f you" to that community).

The more one learns, the more dangerously unqualified for office Hillary becomes. The idea of putting her in charge of people who we demand follow rules and regulations to the letter regardless of convenience -- the NSA, CIA, FBI, DOJ, and military personnel, for example -- should make decent Americans writhe in shame.

[ancianita]

77. ... the more I learn the more I do writhe, and I so want to trust Hillary...

But I doubt her transparency the way I doubt Obama's, and defer to her judgment about what will secure or endanger our freedoms. I'll decide to be trusting but not naive. As long as she isn't guilty of high crimes I'll support her. There are plenty enough leaks from Snowden, et.al., to show that many insiders in this government could be indicted along the same lines.




This is the convention dividing line between Berners and Hillers. It will drive us crazy and cause us to lose if NoDrought Donnie hammers away at it.

[PaulaFarrell]

59. the standard for impeachment is high crimes and misdemeanours

Not incompetence. If she is found guilty of a serious crime, that's different, and I would hope anyone with integrity would not choose to ignore that just because of her party label. I doubt whatever she's done, if anything, warrants that. But I think the VP choice is critical this year.

[rateyes]

60. Hey, I think she deserves a fair trial before

The election.

[amborin]

65. She will never be president, so moot issue

[cherokeeprogressive]

67. If she's elected nothing could stop the republicans so this is an idiotic question.

Moot, and idiotic.

[Agony]

69. Desperate FIRE sector flame bait.

sad

[IdaBriggs]

70. If the FBI recommends indictment, but the DOJ decides not to prosecute

due to political reasons, YES.

Hopefully none of those things will come to pass.

[riderinthestorm]

72. Absolutely not. Shameful flamebait nt

[NorthCarolina]

74. No, but to be impeached you must first be elected,

and unless they have the EVM's programmed for peak Dem vote efficiency, she'll never be 45.

[lumberjack_jeff]

75. Nothing we say, nothing we do, has any influence on the Democratic party...

... why do you think our influence will be any more with Republicans in congress?

Everything you're doing guarantees it. If, out of spite, we nominate the worst Democrat we can find, and if she wins the GE, she won't bring coattails that win control of the house or senate.

If Clinton loses the election, of if she's promptly impeached, it won't be my fault. That's on you.