# Democrats who may run if Hillary is indicted or drops out **URL:** \ **Category:** Politics & Elections\ **Created:** [November 26, 2015, 12:55am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/democrats-who-may-run-if-hillary-is-indicted-or-drops-out/738592 "2015-11-26T00:55:12Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 19\ **Page:** 6
**Author:** ![Little\_Nemo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/little_nemo/32/3120_2.png) [@Little\_Nemo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Little_Nemo)\ **Post date:** [March 17, 2016, 4:54am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/democrats-who-may-run-if-hillary-is-indicted-or-drops-out/738592/101 "2016-03-17T04:54:10Z")
> [@drewder](#): > > Well obviously she did wrong. Any honest person with a clearance knows that. The only real question is will the government actually do anything about it. Honest people with clearance have already been over every charge that’s been thrown at Clinton. And they found nothing to charge her for. The obvious conclusion is she didn’t break any laws. But equally obviously, there are people who won’t accept that conclusion. So they keep saying that Clinton must have committed top secret classified crimes. ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [March 17, 2016, 5:47am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/democrats-who-may-run-if-hillary-is-indicted-or-drops-out/738592/102 "2016-03-17T05:47:40Z")
> [@Little\_Nemo](#): > > Honest people with clearance have already been over every charge that’s been thrown at Clinton. And they found nothing to charge her for. > > The obvious conclusion is she didn’t break any laws. But equally obviously, there are people who won’t accept that conclusion. So they keep saying that Clinton must have committed top secret classified crimes. Indeed, and a lot of what the right wing media is going with are likely the same sources that gave The New York Times a black eye when their promised criminal charges were shown to be just pulled from nowhere and the paper had to back track. So far I have the theory that Republican congress critters like Issa and former ones like Tom Delay had a conversation with those same sorry sources in the executive and they told them something similar like: “A few of us (there would be conservatives in the FBI too for sure) would like to indict Clinton, but there were clearly no nefarious intentions; and like in other cases in the past, just maybe a warning or note to the one that made a mistake. And we are now mostly investigating about how to prevent an issue like this in the future and to check if anyone that should not have gotten access to the emails did so.” The Republicans just heard: “We would like to indict Clinton!!” and dumped only that misleading bit in the Republican echo chamber. Never mind that the FBI can not indict someone, only to recommend it, and it is more likely that there will be not even that. ---
**Author:** ![bengangmo](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/50afbb/32.png) [@bengangmo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/bengangmo)\ **Post date:** [March 17, 2016, 6:01am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/democrats-who-may-run-if-hillary-is-indicted-or-drops-out/738592/103 "2016-03-17T06:01:16Z")
To my mind the real question now is when / if the FBI will issue any sort of statement formally “clearing” Hillary from any wrong doing or recommending no charges or whatever and when such a statement will come - before or after the nomination is sewn up. Then of course - what sort of followup will be forthcoming from the Republicans. (likely a statement vowing to impeach her should she win the election?) ---
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [March 17, 2016, 3:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/democrats-who-may-run-if-hillary-is-indicted-or-drops-out/738592/104 "2016-03-17T15:29:15Z")
I’ll say it won’t happen until after the election, so there can be no accusations of whitewashing. Meanwhile, it’s been tuned out as an issue and will be a non-factor. ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [March 17, 2016, 4:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/democrats-who-may-run-if-hillary-is-indicted-or-drops-out/738592/105 "2016-03-17T16:58:41Z")
> [@ElvisL1ves](#): > > I’ll say it won’t happen until after the election, so there can be no accusations of whitewashing. Meanwhile, it’s been tuned out as an issue and will be a non-factor. Right. This thread is now as irrelevant as the “Trump’s collapse and Cruz’s inevitability” thread. ---
**Author:** ![adaher](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/dec6dc/32.png) [@adaher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/adaher)\ **Post date:** [March 17, 2016, 7:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/democrats-who-may-run-if-hillary-is-indicted-or-drops-out/738592/106 "2016-03-17T19:08:59Z")
> [@ElvisL1ves](#): > > I’ll say it won’t happen until after the election, so there can be no accusations of whitewashing. Meanwhile, it’s been tuned out as an issue and will be a non-factor. From what I’ve read, it should be done by the spring. But if they are going to take until after the election, then Clinton’s VP choice better be ready on Day 1, even if it’s a small chance. Predictit says 25% chance of charges. 1 in 4 is significant enough that the VP better not be some young guy with a thin resume. ---
**Author:** ![Knorf](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/58956e/32.png) [@Knorf](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Knorf)\ **Post date:** [March 17, 2016, 7:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/democrats-who-may-run-if-hillary-is-indicted-or-drops-out/738592/107 "2016-03-17T19:25:10Z")
> [@adaher](#): > > …Predictit says 25% chance of charges… Wishful thinking and partisanship. No way is it really that high. ---
**Author:** ![adaher](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/dec6dc/32.png) [@adaher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/adaher)\ **Post date:** [March 17, 2016, 7:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/democrats-who-may-run-if-hillary-is-indicted-or-drops-out/738592/108 "2016-03-17T19:30:39Z")
Well, the liberal media says no chance, the conservative media says she’s screwed and the mainstream media isn’t willing to offer an opinion, so who the hell knows for sure? The only thing I do know is that Comey is as impartial as they come, so whatever he decides will be the right decision. However, I still have to add one note in the right’s favor: the Democrats’ anger at Obama’s own inspector generals regarding leaks which are not flattering to the Clinton campaign. The appropriateness of the leaks aside, no one can accuse Obama’s own people of partisanship, so there’s a good chance what they’ve leaked is true. and when Democrats are campaigning against Obama administration figures, it can’t bode well. ---
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [March 17, 2016, 7:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/democrats-who-may-run-if-hillary-is-indicted-or-drops-out/738592/109 "2016-03-17T19:56:37Z")
It’s all you have left to hope for, so maybe we should just let you indulge that little daydream. ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [March 17, 2016, 8:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/democrats-who-may-run-if-hillary-is-indicted-or-drops-out/738592/110 "2016-03-17T20:52:25Z")
> [@adaher](#): > > Well, the liberal media says no chance, the conservative media says she’s screwed and the mainstream media isn’t willing to offer an opinion, so who the hell knows for sure? As I noted in previous discussions there were already several examples of people that also made huge mistakes regarding the handling of secrets, the issue of the intention of the people involved was a key one. And the intention item is usually directed to the secrets being transfered on purpose to enemies or for personal gain. After all the huffing and puffing, I have not seen any of that regarding this issue, and that is a big reason why one can not be absolutely sure, but based on past history this looks like the right wing media fooled many people once again. > [@adaher](#): > > The only thing I do know is that Comey is as impartial as they come, so whatever he decides will be the right decision. And there is a 100% chance that the Republicans will cry foul anyhow once the most likely outcome will be reported by Comey. > [@adaher](#): > > However, I still have to add one note in the right’s favor: the Democrats’ anger at Obama’s own inspector generals regarding leaks which are not flattering to the Clinton campaign. The appropriateness of the leaks aside, no one can accuse Obama’s own people of partisanship, so there’s a good chance what they’ve leaked is true. and when Democrats are campaigning against Obama administration figures, it can’t bode well. No, the fact is that already many of the leaks were demonstrated to be false. > **[At Least Six Times The Media Shouldn't Have Trusted Selective Leaks From...](https://www.mediamatters.org/donald-trump/least-six-times-media-shouldnt-have-trusted-selective-leaks-congressional-sources)** > > The New York Times was forced to issue two corrections after relying on Capitol Hill anonymous sourcing for its flawed report on emails from former Secretary of State and Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton. The Clinton debacle is... > [@](#): > > The New York Times was forced to issue two corrections after relying on Capitol Hill anonymous sourcing for its flawed report on emails from former Secretary of State and Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton. The Clinton debacle is the latest example of why the media should be careful when relying on leaks from partisan congressional sources – this is far from the first time journalists who did have been burned. As with many other “scandals” the typical case is that no matter how discredited many past items were the sources that should not be trusted are the ones that never correct or leave past “revelations” like that in their sites and then reuse them like if no counter information or debunkings were available already. ---
**Author:** ![adaher](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/dec6dc/32.png) [@adaher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/adaher)\ **Post date:** [March 18, 2016, 2:20am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/democrats-who-may-run-if-hillary-is-indicted-or-drops-out/738592/111 "2016-03-18T02:20:59Z")
I wasn’t referring to anonymous sourcing, but administration inspectors general. These are pretty impartial people, but they’ve said enough damaging things about the issue that Clinton allies have felt the need to attack their integrity. Which is the same as attacking the President’s integrity since he appointed them and they answer directly to him and serve at his pleasure. ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [March 18, 2016, 3:58am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/democrats-who-may-run-if-hillary-is-indicted-or-drops-out/738592/112 "2016-03-18T03:58:28Z")
> [@adaher](#): > > I wasn’t referring to anonymous sourcing, but administration inspectors general. :rolleyes: Unless they are reported as definitive by the inspectors general the leaks are only that, still coming from an anonymous source about early reports of the investigation, AFAIK what you refer about are the leaked letters pointing to yet again the already reported drone attacks. > **[Hillary Clinton had emails on server more classified than top secret](https://www.cbsnews.com/news/hillary-clinton-had-emails-on-server-more-classified-than-top-secret/)** > > The inspector general for the intelligence community recently updated Congress on the contents of the former secretary of state's home server > [@](#): > > The FBI is currently investigating whether State Department officials improperly included classified material in email correspondence with Clinton. The State Department and the intelligence community have at times clashed over how the material on her server should be classified, with the State Department arguing it is less sensitive than the intelligence community insists. > > Her campaign press secretary, Brian Fallon, reiterated what Clinton has said for months: no classified information was sent or received through her private email server. > > “This is the same interagency dispute that has been playing out for months, and it does not change the fact that these emails were not classified at the time they were sent or received,” he said. “It is alarming that the intelligence community [inspector general], working with Republicans in Congress, continues to selectively leak materials in order to resurface the same allegations and try to hurt Hillary Clinton’s presidential campaign. The Justice Department’s inquiry should be allowed to proceed without any further interference.” > > The top Democrat on the Senate Intelligence Committee, Dianne Feinstein, had a similar response, calling the story “nothing new.” > > “None of the emails that are alleged to contain classified information were written by Secretary Clinton. The question of whether she received emails with classified information has nothing to do with any action taken by Secretary Clinton,” she said. “Additionally, none of the emails that were sent to Secretary Clinton were marked as including classified information, a requirement when such information is transmitted.” > > Feinstein said the inspector general was being used for “baldly partisan attacks.” ---
**Author:** ![adaher](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/dec6dc/32.png) [@adaher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/adaher)\ **Post date:** [March 18, 2016, 4:48am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/democrats-who-may-run-if-hillary-is-indicted-or-drops-out/738592/113 "2016-03-18T04:48:34Z")
Which is what I already said. A couple of inspector generals leaked information and Clinton allies are very unhappy about that. ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [March 18, 2016, 4:53am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/democrats-who-may-run-if-hillary-is-indicted-or-drops-out/738592/114 "2016-03-18T04:53:29Z")
> [@adaher](#): > > Which is what I already said. A couple of inspector generals leaked information and Clinton allies are very unhappy about that. And that does not contradict what was reported; again, I’m just saying that what I have seen so far is pointing to the likelihood that an indictment is **not** going to be recommended. ---
**Author:** ![adaher](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/dec6dc/32.png) [@adaher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/adaher)\ **Post date:** [March 18, 2016, 5:00am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/democrats-who-may-run-if-hillary-is-indicted-or-drops-out/738592/115 "2016-03-18T05:00:23Z")
I see little evidence either way, and I suspect that Democrats are just as likely to mount a PR campaign against Comey even if he doesn’t indict, if his report is scathing enough. ---
**Author:** ![Little\_Nemo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/little_nemo/32/3120_2.png) [@Little\_Nemo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Little_Nemo)\ **Post date:** [March 18, 2016, 5:33am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/democrats-who-may-run-if-hillary-is-indicted-or-drops-out/738592/116 "2016-03-18T05:33:30Z")
> [@adaher](#): > > From what I’ve read, it should be done by the spring. But if they are going to take until after the election, then Clinton’s VP choice better be ready on Day 1, even if it’s a small chance. Predictit says 25% chance of charges. 1 in 4 is significant enough that the VP better not be some young guy with a thin resume. They would have filed them already but they’re almost ready with those White Water charges and those have first dibs. My prediction? The same people will still be claiming indictments are right around the corner eight years from now as Clinton winds down her second term. ---
**Author:** ![42fish](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/4/b487fb/32.png) [@42fish](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/42fish)\ **Post date:** [March 18, 2016, 9:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/democrats-who-may-run-if-hillary-is-indicted-or-drops-out/738592/117 "2016-03-18T21:45:02Z")
> [@Little\_Nemo](#): > > They would have filed them already but they’re almost ready with those White Water charges and those have first dibs. Shouldn’t indicting her for whacking Vince Foster take top priority, what with it being a murder and all? > [@Little\_Nemo](#): > > My prediction? The same people will still be claiming indictments are right around the corner eight years from now as Clinton winds down her second term. Except they’ll be predicting it about the next probable Democratic candidate instead of Hilary. ---
**Author:** ![DSeid](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/dseid/32/20194_2.png) [@DSeid](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DSeid)\ **Post date:** [March 18, 2016, 10:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/democrats-who-may-run-if-hillary-is-indicted-or-drops-out/738592/118 "2016-03-18T22:54:34Z")
White Water … don’t you mean her connections to Walter White? ---
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [March 18, 2016, 11:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/democrats-who-may-run-if-hillary-is-indicted-or-drops-out/738592/119 "2016-03-18T23:04:34Z")
> [@Little\_Nemo](#): > > My prediction? The same people will still be claiming indictments are right around the corner eight years from now as Clinton winds down her second term. And the House Republicans will be holding their thirtieth or so Benghazi hearing. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/democrats-who-may-run-if-hillary-is-indicted-or-drops-out/738592.md?page=5)