As June 7 draws near, the rhetoric about the two

[MineralMan]

Democratic candidates continues to ramp up in its extreme nature. It's as if some people think that the more obvious the result appears to be, the more harsh their comments should be. It's difficult to discuss the election in any real way, due to that harsh rhetoric.

Increasingly vicious attacks against Hillary Clinton will not change the results. Ugly attacks against Sanders are equally useless at this point. So, why are we seeing more of these things?

The only answer I can think of is that those making such increasingly vehement attacks are not really doing so with any real concern about the primary race for the Democratic nomination. There must be some other reason for it. Such postings seem to me to have some other motive. Perhaps poisoning the general election is the goal. I really don't know.

Fortunately, at least on DU, continuing such verbiage after June 14, when the last primary is held in DC, won't be tolerated by the administration of this website. We'll be able to turn to discussions designed to help defeat Donald Trump, instead of defeating our own Party. There may be a final flurry of ugliness, but that will soon be over.

We have an election we must win coming up in a few months. We have coattails to extend so we can win a majority in the Senate. We have state legislatures that can be shifted to Democratic control. We have much work to do. I'm looking forward to starting that phase of 2016. We can start soon to come together to actually move the country forward.

Hasten the day!

[onehandle]

1. 17 more days of helping to elect Donald Trump on DU.

Essentially.

[RKP5637]

2. Well said!!! n/t

[Trust Buster]

4. Here is your answer Mineral Man. We will continue to defend our nominee from these vicious

attacks. The losing side needs to lay down digital arms first IMO.

[MineralMan]

6. Yes, I know. The attacks, however, will end on June 15, though.

At least they will here. They will no longer be tolerated. I plan to patiently wait for that and keep my discussions moderate in nature.

[MineralMan]

5. Hmm...looking at history, I'm not

seeing even a sliver of a chance of an indictment. Some people appear to be holding that up as a sort of wishful thinking, hoping for a deus ex machina coming in to alter the plot of the play. The likelihood of an indictment of a Secretary of State over her choice of an email method seems virtually nil to me. At most, she will be scolded by the FBI for that, but I see no potential criminal charges being brought by the Department of Justice over this.

The FBI will, in due course, issue a recommendation, but the FBI cannot indict anyone. Indictments at that level come from federal grand juries called by the Attorney General. Such proceedings often take years to come to any conclusion.

A more realistic expectation would be an FBI report that criticizes Clinton and the State Department for allowing a dangerous private email system to be used. For an indictment to ensue, criminal intent would have to be demonstrated. I don't think that's possible, since I don't think any such intent existed. The report will go to the Attorney General's office, which will almost certainly decide that insufficient evidence of any crime exists. No grand jury will be called in this situation.

However, you're free to wish for this deus ex machina to give you a desired result, but I don't think there is one written into this play. The play has been running for dozens of decades, every four years. So far, that plot trick has never been used in a production of the play.

[Gothmog]

7. It is going to get heated on DU

[MineralMan]

8. Yes. There be a deluge of anger. I'm

Going to do something else on the 15th, and come back later.