Now, a Times analysis of nearly 7 million individual contributions has provided unprecedented detail about the army of people behind the $27 donations Sanders mentions at virtually every campaign stop.

Many resemble Emily Condit, 40 of Sylmar, who has contributed three times -- $5 each -- to the Vermont senator's campaign.

Condit, who has several physical disabilities, is among the largest single group of Sanders' donors -- those who don't have a job. Of the $209 million given to the Vermont senator's campaign, about one out of every four dollars came from those not in the workforce, who include the unemployed or retired.

My mother was a lovely and delightful woman. The kind of person people of her generation would call a "firecracker" or a "pistol."

We had our share of rough patches, as mothers and daughters do, but I have enormous respect for the way she handled the challenges in her life. I did not, I am sorry to say, always have that respect, teenagers can be so judgmental and self-righteous, but as I have gotten older I have come to understand the decisions she made even if they were not the decisions i might have made.

She had a hard life in many ways. A tough childhood, a very bad marriage that lasted way too long, the task of being essentially a single mother at a time when she could not even get credit in her own name, the challenge of being a working mother during an era when schools and church groups and scout troops expected mothers to be ready and willing and on-call as volunteers.

And yet my mom was one of the funniest most fun-filled people I have ever known.

Turning to the first sentence of your reply, I'd like to push back: Could you expand on your general statement about Donald Trump and "some of his policies may make sense...?"  BTW, the reason that I ask is not to focus solely on your statement--because I ask for specificity from anyone with whom I talk these days to focus on what we like about a candidate, about what we want from such candidate, and about the specific issues where we align with the candidate.

This morning, Stephanopoulis (sp?) interviewed Sen. Bob Corker (R) about how committed Repub leadership might be to Donald Trump.  When asked what he liked about Donald's approach, the Senator started talking about HRC and how bad she was, etc.  I've noticed that the go-right-to-the-opposition without saying what they respect, follow, like about Donald seems to be a pattern these days when Repub officials are pressed.  Except here, George S pressed by asking again what Corker personally liked and/or agreed with when it came to Donald.  Corker stuttered a bit, and then said that he was confident they would work it out.

Actress Susan Sarandon says Hillary Clinton's foreign policy makes her a greater national security risk than Donald Trump, adding that it's "inevitable" the White House hopeful will be indicted.

"I believe in a way she's more dangerous, except they're both talking to Henry Kissinger apparently lately," Sarandon told The Young Turks on Thursday.

"Her record -- I mean, she did not learn a thing from Iraq. She is an interventionist. She's done horrible things, horrible things, and very callously," she added.

"I don't know if she's overcompensating or what her trip is. I think we'll be in Iran in two seconds. That scares me. That frightens me."

When we recall HRC's early legal assignment with the Watergate investigative team--and, the resulting success of that congressionally authorized investigation--we can see that her experience there had an effect.  Since you asked for something in the nature of surmise (since Turley himself seems to be creating the tale out of somewhere other than recorded facts), here is my surmise: One of the big humiliations in government & politics during the latter half of the 20th century was the infamous Watergate together with the infamous Nixon ... Clinton was assigned a legal role in the investigation that ultimately saw Nixon resign ... the Repubs have never forgotten that.  Take it from there.

I don't know why anyone would encourage it unless they were some sort of provocateur, which is entirely possible..

And I'll peruse the transcripts of the Sunday gasbag shows where far too many wingbats now hold court, thanks to the singular determination of producers to inject their special brand of poisonous nonsense into the mainstream. This little ball of babble from National Review's Reihan Salam on Face the Nation yesterday stood out for me:

"There's a version of what Trump is saying. Even actually when he's talking about nuclear proliferation, there's actually a version of what he's saying that is, in my view, defensible. He does not make that case. Time and again rather than making, you know, an affirmative case for his use on immigration and trade, he actually keeps getting drawn in to talking about his personal business affairs rather than talking about the unemployment rate.

"So when you're looking at Republicans, as [Susan Page, Washington bureau chief for USA Today] is saying, there is this jockeying for position, what do we do now that we know the Republican Party has changed in this meaningful, material way? And you see some smart people, like Tom Cotton, the senator from Arkansas, he is looking around the bend and he's actually trying to be very cautious. Being a good soldier for Trump, but also recognizing there is this national constituency in the country, how do I speak to it in a coherent and defensible way?"

It's rather amazing to see in conservative media the great extent to which the right holds intellectual featherweights like Tom Cotton and Bob Corker in such high esteem and regard. Otherwise, were you to go simply on how they play on Sundays, you'd dismiss them as not ready for prime time -- and not without good reason, if these rather insipid remarks from Sen. Corker on ABC News' This Week With George Stephanopolous yesterday are any indication:

Stephanopolous: "Is it realistic to expect Mexico to pay for that wall?"

Sen. Bob Corker (R-TN): "Well, again, I don't want to get into a debate about the nuances of that. I mean it's a statement that [Donald Trump] has made. I thought this interview was going to be more about the foreign policy arena. I think he has a tremendous opportunity there."

Stephanopolous: "Well, our relations with Mexico is foreign policy."

Corker: "Okay."

That's why I think it's important to see for yourself what your opponents are actually saying, rather than getting it from secondary and tertiary sources. Maybe if you actually took the time to do the same, instead of furiously bouncing off the walls of your own echo chamber like Cenk Uyger and the Huffington Post's Seth Abramson, you might contribute more to these discussions than left field bleacher banter.