Jordan Chariton, a political reporter for "The Young Turks" news show


As the nation lies glued to their televisions and iPhones to watch the horror of two more African Americans shot and killed by police—followed by what seemed like a professional hit job that killed five Dallas police officers—the tremors of Hillary Clinton's political earthquake have dwindled by default.


But the aftershock won't go quietly into the night.


Republicans, who up until now became famous for dog and pony show investigations like Benghazi, actually had a strong leg to stand on in their hearing with FBI Director James Comey Thursday, grilling him on blatant inconsistencies and contradictions layered into his decision not to indict the former Secretary of State for sharing classified information on a private email server.


She was "extremely careless; I think she was negligent," he said to Republican and Democratic lawmakers—but apparently not grossly negligent enough to be prosecuted.


Would anyone not named Hillary Clinton get the same benefit of every doubt?


As Attorney and Assistant Professor at University of New Hampshire Seth Abramson wrote, "The issue for Comey wasn't that Clinton hadn't committed any federal crimes, but that in his personal opinion the chief federal felony statute Clinton violated has been too rarely applied for him to feel comfortable applying it to Clinton."


All of this paints a clear picture: that people in Clinton's power bracket are above the law compared with average citizens without bankers, lobbyists, and other corporate lawmakers in their corner.

And that helps Donald Trump—the candidate representing the exploding anti-establishment, anti-corruption voting bloc filled with a mix of Democrats, Republicans, Independents, Libertarians and millennials.


"The choice between an unorthodox candidate who makes them believe their situation can be better, and an above the law symbol of everything that's keeping them down, is powerful."


Sure, Trump might be falsely playing the part of an outsider against corruption. In reality he's as much an insider and benefactor of corruption as any other elected official. But he's sold millions of Americans by playing a fire-breathing populist who'll untangle the rigged political web Clinton helped create.
For low-information voters who've not been glued to politics for a year like myself and many of you, who's just tuning in a few months before Election Day—who's going to sound more appealing?
A woman you've been exposed to for 30 years, with many negative connotations to boot; most recently having potentially lied about sending classified material from a cockamamie basement home server, who is called "crooked" from opponents and untrustworthy from members of her own party?
Or, by the optics, a successful businessman tapping into your frustration with your frozen or declining wages, increased work hours, crummy or non-existent healthcare, and general cynicism toward the politicians who are supposedly representing you.
With all his unforced errors, many of which have been blatantly racist and xenophobic, Trump is down just 4.7 percent in the RealClearPolitics general election average.

He'll likely score record lows among Latinos and do poorly among African Americans. But he's also likely to do very well among working class whites in all-important Rust-Belt states like Pennsylvania and Ohio, which are also crucial swing states.
Ultimately, like most elections, independent voters and millennials may play a deciding role. What will be crucial will be the rate at which the latter turns out for Clinton.

Yes, Bernie Sanders is likely to endorse Clinton; reportedly as soon as Tuesday. Despite the power and influence he wields among millions of supporters—even a towering progressive figure like Sanders playing the broader political game of stopping Trump will struggle to endear Hillary Clinton to millions of young people who simply don't trust her, and in many cases, don't like what she stands for.
I've met and spoken to thousands of them along the campaign trail; they certainly don't like Trump, but their disdain for Clinton is visible from the moment her name is mentioned in a question.
That kind of opposition doesn't magically disappear in response to a Sanders endorsement, or out-of-touch TV and digital pundits telling them what's good for them, or a few months to cool off before November.

And for the broader electorate, the choice between an unorthodox candidate who makes them believe their situation can be better, and an above the law symbol of everything that's keeping them down, is powerful.

By dodging indictment, Clinton avoided jail. But the negative connotations many Americans bring away from it, and how craftily Donald Trump can make the crooked label stick, may just deprive her of The White House.

Sanders endorsement (if it comes) wont help her, because there exists a whole back-catalogue of his observations about her from their debates.

Sure, he didn't hammer her, but there's enough already said to make his endorsement seem very forced and empty - which will just reinforce the negative appearance she already has.

Only fraud can save Clinton.

... wrote on Jul 11^th, 2016 at 3:27pm:

Sanders endorsement (if it comes) wont help her, because there exists a whole back-catalogue of his observations about her from their debates. Sure, he didn't hammer her, but there's enough already said to make his endorsement seem very forced and empty - which will just reinforce the negative appearance she already has. Only fraud can save Clinton.

Runs in about the same as Christie and Paul Ryans endorsement of Trump.

bogarde73 wrote on Jul 11^th, 2016 at 3:10pm:

Would anyone not named Hillary Clinton get the same benefit of every doubt?

Would anyone not named President Bush (and 'lucky' friends) get the same benefit of every doubt for actions in Iraq?

NorthOfNorth wrote on Jul 11^th, 2016 at 6:19pm:

bogarde73 wrote on Jul 11th, 2016 at 3:10pm: Would anyone not named Hillary Clinton get the same benefit of every doubt? Would anyone not named President Bush (and 'lucky' friends) get the same benefit of every doubt for actions in Iraq?

I'm sure a clinton or a kennedy would get that benefit too.

NorthOfNorth wrote on Jul 11^th, 2016 at 6:19pm:

bogarde73 wrote on Jul 11th, 2016 at 3:10pm: Would anyone not named Hillary Clinton get the same benefit of every doubt? Would anyone not named President Bush (and 'lucky' friends) get the same benefit of every doubt for actions in Iraq?

Were you expecting someone to arrest Bush or something? Don't be silly.

Ain't gonna happen, nor does anybody in the States give a crap about, say, the 2011 ruling of the Kuala Lumpur War Crimes Tribunal that declared Bush and Tony Blair guilty of "war crimes."

That and a couple of dollars will get you a cup of coffee at Dunkin' Donuts.

... wrote on Jul 11^th, 2016 at 7:09pm:

NorthOfNorth wrote on Jul 11th, 2016 at 6:19pm: bogarde73 wrote on Jul 11th, 2016 at 3:10pm: Would anyone not named Hillary Clinton get the same benefit of every doubt? Would anyone not named President Bush (and 'lucky' friends) get the same benefit of every doubt for actions in Iraq? I'm sure a clinton or a kennedy would get that benefit too.

Yes, I'm certain of it.

The4thEstate wrote on Jul 11^th, 2016 at 7:38pm:

NorthOfNorth wrote on Jul 11th, 2016 at 6:19pm: bogarde73 wrote on Jul 11th, 2016 at 3:10pm: Would anyone not named Hillary Clinton get the same benefit of every doubt? Would anyone not named President Bush (and 'lucky' friends) get the same benefit of every doubt for actions in Iraq? Were you expecting someone to arrest Bush or something? Don't be silly.

Of course not!


The4thEstate wrote on Jul 11^th, 2016 at 7:38pm:

Ain't gonna happen, nor does anybody in the States give a crap about, say, the 2011 ruling of the Kuala Lumpur War Crimes Tribunal that declared Bush and Tony Blair guilty of "war crimes."

I'm sure they don't.

Doubtful, most of his supporters detest Lying Hilary.

bogarde73 wrote on Jul 11^th, 2016 at 3:10pm:

All of this paints a clear picture: that people in Clinton's power bracket are above the law compared with average citizens without bankers, lobbyists, and other corporate lawmakers in their corner. And that helps Donald Trump—the candidate representing the exploding anti-establishment, anti-corruption voting bloc filled with a mix of Democrats, Republicans, Independents, Libertarians and millennials.

Exactly so, bogarde.


This Comey/FBI decision......

Highlighting, once again, for everyone [i.e. the 'plebs'] to see, that all 'higher status' individuals in almost all Western societies/'democracies', remain [largely] unaccountable for the consequences of their official decision making,        .....and 'lawfully' immune, in every act of ['lower level'] criminality or, corruption or, for their criminal negligence, in the performance of their duties.


And the elites, look on in astonishment,         .....and just can't understand why the 'plebs' are so 'enthralled',         ......with someone as 'crass' as Trump!!       :)          :D

IMHO, I believe that initially some of Sander's supporters may migrate towards Hillary, but the bulk will probably shake their heads in disgust & disbelief that "The Bern" would forsake their common cause & sell out to Wall Street's beloved Hillary....'Queen of Corruption'.

Some might be more susceptible to some of Trump's messages, but if not the majority of Sander's supporters will probably fall off to having their own "pity parties", & eventually just stay at home....not voting....daydreaming of how things might have been, but never forgetting how they were sold out by yet another "career politician".   :(