Well, if I can find one magazine cite…it MUST be true.
Or not.
*Clarifying: Comey doesn’t say the FBI is reopening the Clinton investigation per se, rather that it’s assessing newly found emails.
*
In other words, it was Congressman Jason Chaffetz who framed the letter as saying that the FBI was “re-opening” the investigation. Comey never said that (even though some media stories took the lazy approach and copied and pasted a news release from Chaffetz)
What’s a person “like me”?
So because a Daily Beast writer “clarifies” it to your liking, it disproves the congressman’s “spin”? That Snopes article doesn’t really pick a side, it actually describes it as “quibbling” over whether it should be called a re-opening. It’s perfectly reasonable to call it a re-opening. Comey’s letter opens with how he had testified to the fact that the FBI had completed it’s investigation. He then says he’s supplementing that testimony to inform them the FBI found some new emails to review. The people saying this as a supplemental investigation or insisting the case was never closed so this can’t be a re-opening are spinning a lot more than Chaffetz’s tweet was.
cite?
Yup. I don’t see how the defense “nu-uh, it wasn’t ‘re-opened’ because she’s been under an on-going FBI investigation the whole time” really helps their position.
doorhinge:
You have one candidate that has objectively lied much more often than the other according to any fact-checking organization who has bothered to fact-check the candidates’ many statements.
That same candidate is in fact using “I lied” essentially as a defense against accusations of sexual assault by multiple women. (I.e., his argument is essentially, “I lied when I bragged about sexually assaulting women, so you should trust me now when I claim that I didn’t.”)
So, essentially, you are choosing someone who lies big-time over someone who lies a lot less while claiming that you won’t support a liar. Frankly, perhaps you deserve to get a fascist like Trump for your president. Unfortunately, the rest of us don’t.
why do people argue with Trump supporters? If your argument against HRC starts with “criminal” then you have lost your point and should rightly be ignored and taunted. Of the two candidates only 1 has a court date next week. It aint HRC.
Now, if you think HRC is a bad leader because of her policies or history, fine. If you think the system needs to be torn down by a Trump type to “drain the swamp” fine too. But please, stop with the hysterics. its silly.
To the OP: No, Trump isn’t going to win. HRC is ahead, has been ahead, and will stay ahead.
But if Trump does win… so what? This country isn’t a president, its 300+ million people. We have had weak and stupid leaders before and managed. We will again.
Nor did I imply that it was not your choice. I merely wondered why you opted to use it.
I’ve seen you use it in different threads, and it’s almost as bad as “Regards, Shodan.”
YM obviously varies, but I’m sure that I’m not alone in that sentiment. I’ve seen other people reference it being annoying, as well.
No malice in this. Just curiosity.
Are you equally curious about posters who call Trump “Cheetoh Jesus” or Drumpf? Ol’ doorhinge is just making a little dig at her, what’s the mystery?
Equally curious? No. Because I’m aware that Drumpf is Trump’s real name, and there are scores of memes that play up his orange color, bad haircut and so on.
I’ve never really seen anyone besides ol’ doorhinge use this particular word for Hillary.
I think ol’ Doorhinge is just using some generic disrespect.
I would if Clinton were oranger than Trump. In this case Trump is older, so calling her “ol” doesn’t make any sense.