I realize I’m not the brightest bulb in the bunch around here.

[busterbrown]

Last edited Wed Aug 3, 2016, 10:35 PM - Edit history (1)

But I’m still trying to summarize to my GOP acquaintances ( I have a few, I need for business purposes)
the reason why Clinton’s email controversy is bullshit..

So I pulled up the WAPO’s summary of their Pinocchio scoring on the email controversy and so help me to God I couldn’t finish it.. It’s long and especially boring with Clinton around 2 1/2 noses for every listed point they made reference ..

Listen This email bullshit still won’t go away and Trump and his minions ( fewer and fewer by the minute) are constantly staying with the same lines of attack as they did 1 year ago. Just look at the stunt they pulled at the convention still referring to her emails every 5 minutes.

What really concerns me is practically every MSM reporter who questions a Republican with regards to Trump’s insanity, still lets the lies slip out of the their mouths with absolutely no push back. Thats because I think the subject is not understood by even the people who are covering it.

Anyway, I’m a nervous nellie type been so my whole life..and fearful that still might bite us in the ass..You just never know

But is this piece crazy boring and redundant as well? I want to be able to answer assholes who continually bring the subject up,w/o just stating “it’s a partisan witch hunt.. Check it out..https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/fact-checker/wp/2016/03/09/fact-checking-the-hillary-clinton-email-controversy/

[Bernardo de La Paz]

1. Media are all wimps cowed by visions of denial of access. WaPo has hit Trump very hard.

WaPo a little less than others. WaPo was and is banned by Trump from attending rallies and press conferences because of their hard-hitting pieces. It didn't stop them from continuing the same way. Irony of ironies, tRump granted them an exclusive interview.

Katy Tur was dissed and sassed and bullied by tRump, but she has done some very good reporting since then.

By the way, no worries about "brightest bulb", etc. I say "If you are the smartest person in the room, then you need to find a new room".

[Buckeye_Democrat]

2. It's ridiculous

Example:

Democrats’ still-misleading claim comparing Clinton emails to her predecessors’

July 8, 2016: It was misleading more than a year ago, and still misleading now. Democrats continue to argue that Clinton “released more emails and more pages of emails” than “any of her predecessors.” But this talking point assumes a direct comparison between Clinton and her predecessors, but that is not applicable.

The only person who regularly used emails is a singular predecessor, Colin Powell. Powell did use his personal account on the job, and by his own admission no longer has access to the account he used then. So while Clinton did turn over more email records than he, she was the only one uniquely in position to do so upon the State Department’s request. Further, Clinton was the only secretary of state to conduct her official business solely with a personal private server.

(Three Pinocchios.)

I'm not impressed by that Kessler fellow.

[emulatorloo]

3. Look at Comey's statements under oath when he testified before congress

Under oath, he walked a lot of statements back about the emails that he made during the press conference.

He also said Hillary did not lie, nor did she break the law.

I personally was surprised WAPO 'fact' checkers seemed to miss that.

[bluedye33139]

6. Comey knew what he was doing, frst making a smear, then CYAing himself by backing off

[lapucelle]

4. Here's something that you might find useful.

http://dailyhowler.blogspot.com/

[bluedye33139]

5. The claim that HRC emailed classified information is false

The essential claim is that HRC took classified information and emailed it to correspondents. The fact is that some of the information was later classified but was not classified at the time.

The statement "no classified information was contained in the emails" is false because information later classified was contained, and therefore one can say that Clinton's statements along this line are inaccurate if you take into account the fact that information later classified had previously been emailed by her.

I wouldn't waste time fighting with Republicans about this. Let them think what they want. It's not a real issue.

[lpbk2713]

7. I don't even try.

With most of the Wingnuts I know, all they need is their Kool-Aid.

[mercuryblues]

8. it was a partisan

witch hunt. which is why the republicans turned on Comey. The republican, who is also the head of the FBI did not recommend charging her. If he charged her, he would also have to charge everyone involved in those email chains. How about statute of limitations. If Clinton was charged, Kerry, Cheney, Rove, Powell and Rice would also have to be. Along with their aides. Even Comey testified that the 3 emails were not properly identified as classified. I still don't know if Clinton sent OR received those emails. I am guessing she received them.

Doing what she did was not illegal. The State IT department knew about it. They say they did not know and never approved. That is a lie. At least twice they provided support, all the emails from Clinton to IT was sent from her email address and the guy who set it up, went to work in the IT dept. They knew.

All of this could have been avoided if she had been given a system that actually worked when she took office. She asked and was denied.

If they can't accept facts, then they never will. Charge them more for your services, they will believe anything.

[world wide wally]

9. Why does Comey still have a job when he manipulates FBI intelligence for political purposes?