IOW, is he there to hold the interests of the fringe commie kooks that generally vote Dem because "lesser of two evils" viewpoints, and then when Hillary wins he implores and begs his group of nuts to vote for her?
I've read this possibility from several sources over the past few months, and there does seem to be a small amount of validity to it, but I really didn't take it too seriously. But during the Dem debate, he said that the American people are tired of hearing about Hillary's e-mail problem. Besides the point that the statement was a lie, why would he do that? This is a political campaign. You don't help prop up the other candidates. You're trying to win. The strategy is just to say nothing about it and let them sink or swim on their own. If you're not trying to win, why are you running?
Now if you were to ask him, he'd probably give some type of explanation that he wants to defeat her on the issues, not on scandals taking her down. Sounds really statesmanlike on paper, but I don't believe that for a second. Statesmen would conduct themselves like that towards those they agree with as well as those of whom they don't. Does anyone believe if this were the GE and the Republican opponent had some scandal following them around that Bernie would be the same way? Com'n, no way. And Hillary certainly wouldn't have done that to him if the roles were reversed.
The other explanations might be that by drawing attention to saying it's not an issue, you make it an issue. Now maybe people who weren't aware of the scandal will say "What's he talking about?" and investigate. The flip side of that is he's taken a stance that following the law regarding the protection of State secrets isn't all that important to him and he's, once again, given the Clinton's a pass to break the law and not suffer any consequences for it. Or maybe he thinks it's more important to protect the Dem "brand."
So this raised my suspicions about him and his motives. Politically, it just doesn't add up.
.
