In general, this is what I believe. I don’t believe that anything those supporters “knew” about Hillary will have changed in any significant way.
You mean the highlights that the people who were wrong in this thread would have read? Because I think you are proving my point.
What this report should debunk pretty thoroughly is this idea that people are just out to get Clinton and that she’s a generally honest politician. Pretty much everything she said about her private account was a lie and Comey refuted them all, one by one.
At this point there can be no doubt that she’s a habitual liar and that her own behavior is what leads to scandal.
No worries about looking that up El_Kabong. I agree that while there’s some similarities, the punishment dished out is an outlier -likely due to the sailors brazen attempts to hide what he did.
Just for the record, I want Hillary to win. I did not want her indicted. Of the last four or five standing, her, Trump, Cruz, Sanders, Rubio, she’s the best for the job. But I don’t think it’s good to ignore reality here.
No, I meant yesterday before people had read the highlights.
Well said
She’s drawn controversy throughout her career. Often claiming her enemies attacks were only political. There’s certainly an element of truth there. But her manipulations, lies, and half truths help create these situations. Then it becomes a political attack.
As politifact reports many times already, yes, Clinton has problems, but generally she is indeed more honest.
Doubtful as this also ignores that the unhinged attacks against Clinton are real. Still it does not refutes the mistakes made, but as the FBI told us, there is no good evidence of criminal intent.
By contrast Trump and many republicans do tell us that they will change the law to allow criminal behavior, as in torture.
The whole affair? Of course the whole affair hurt Hillary, I just don’t think yesterday did particularly.
I’m not sure if anyone really thought “she’s a generally honest politician”, but this doesn’t change my opinion that many people are really out to get her.
There’s no doubt that a lot of the attacks used on Clinton are baloney. That’s true of every politician. There has not been a high profile politician in our history who has not had really weird accusations thrown at them, from McCain starting the Forrestal fire to Obama being a gay Muslim to John Kerry faking his medals.
But when stuff sticks, it sticks for a reason. It’s very rare that a politician is damaged by a scandal that isn’t legit. Politicians escape blame for real scandals far more often than they receive blame for fake ones.
I don’t think the two are related, but this coming on the heels of Loretta Lynch having a meeting with Bill Clinton is such bad timing.
I defy you to find a politician that has received attacks of this level for literally decades and remained standing at the end of it.
Because people want to believe it.
What? You didn’t actually think the truth of the allegations had anything to do with it, did you? Right now, on this board and elsewhere, the outcome of the FBI investigation is being spun in all sorts of ways, from “See? She’s completely innocent!” to “Reality disagrees with the bullshit I believe, therefore the system is rigged!”. Stuff sticks because people want it to stick.
Uh-huh. Ask John McCain how that worked out in 2000. Or John Kerry in 2004.
Cite?
Stern Rebuke, But No Charges For Clinton - NY Times
FBI Won’t Recommend Charges Against Clinton Over Private Email Use - Wall Street Journal
No Charges, No Vindication for Clinton in Email Case - LA Times
Not Charged but ‘Careless’ - Chicago Tribune
That was just a few print headlines I could easily find.
Clinton avoids charges, but rebuke casts shadow- Houston Chronicle, but from the Washington Post
sub-title: FBI director slams her judgement, management of state secrets
Last paragraph before the refer “he systematically obliterated many of the key defenses Clinton and her advisors have offered to reassure the public”
You mean the Clinton who became the second president in history to be impeached? That Clinton?
Question, raised before but unanswered: Does the SecState have any authority in the matter of classification? It would seem to me that in matters of diplomacy, she is, by the very nature of her position, somewhat empowered. If she says a matter is beneath such concern, too trivial to be secret, does that have any authority? And if the thing classified is a matter of public record, if the cat is already out of the bag, can it legitimately be regarded as illegal to discuss what everybody already knows?
And if SecState has no such authority, who does? Who is empowered to overrule her decision on classification?
Is there some reason to think she officially de-classified any of it? Her defense all along was that it wasn’t classified at the time.
Don’t know. Kinda why I was asking the question. Because I don’t know.
Two sure things: Republicans will continue worrying this like a dog with a bone for as long as they think they can command news cycles (and probably longer), and it will have no major effect on the Presidential election. I also don’t think it’s going to have much effect on down-ticket races, but that’s less certain.
A point I acknowledged and you edited out. This is poor form. If you just want to spout off and not engage in honest debate I’d appreciate you using someone elses posts to do it. If you’re truly talking to me how about starting with acknowledging what I actually did say? It isn’t that hard to do.