FBI to conduct new investigation of emails from Clinton’s private server
nohero said:
paulsurovell said:
As I did during the primary, and since then, I have expressed criticism of Hillary's campaign. I think it is deeply flawed and the closeness of the race -- she should be blowing Trump out with double digits -- is a consequence of that.
It was entirely appropriate for progressives to criticize Secretary Clinton during the primary. A problem that Secretary Clinton has is that criticism has continued up to the eve of her contest with the GOP candidate - with many "progressives" latching on to tangents (like continuing with the email issue) instead of discussing issues.
And criticizing her on issues, instead of focusing on how her positions are better than the GOP candidate's, doesn't help her. In other words, if she is getting attacked from what is supposed to be HER side, no wonder her numbers aren't higher. So-called "progressives" should have thought about that - being able to address issues with her after the election won't be worth anything if she doesn't win first.
I agree.
Notice that Clinton's favorability was pretty high until the attacks from the Democratic side at the beginning of this year, namely the Bernie campaign. Knowing the right wing many independents and Democrats disregarded right wing attacks on her, rightly so.
When Bernie attacked Clinton, often using the same attacks as the right wing, that gave gravitas to those attacks. Many shifted, thinking maybe there is validity to the right wing originated attacks.
The right wing is united. Don't let them fool you that they are not. If the election ends in the House, we will see the Republicans united in "electing" Trump. Unlike the Democrats, who are weak, weak, weak, who are disunited and agonize over trivialities.
paulsurovell said:
nohero said:
paulsurovell said:
(1) I thought you said that this thread wasn't about me.
(2) Do you know "how the 'interesting question' turned out?' "
(3) Do you consider the "interesting question" to be an "anti-Hillary claim?"
(1) Obviously, that's out of my control, since you posted a whole heap of "you" yesterday in this thread. Fortunately, the thread topic (misleading title and all) is moot, dead, gone to join the heavenly choir, and is an "ex-topic". So it can be about anything now, I suppose.
(2) Not near the top of anything I think is important to speculate about, although that's where you and I differ.
(3) Since its meant to cast Secretary Clinton in a negative light (something about letting Weiner get close to classified info, or something like that), the answer is obviously, "Yes". The person who writes the twitter feed that you quoted certainly thinks so (You didn't provide a cite or link, but it's easily found with "the Google").
It's uncharacteristic of you to leave out citation information like that, but having read tweets from that gentleman, a Mr. Michael Tracey, it might be because he's a real Hillary-hating, stereotype-of-a-Bernie-Bro piece of work.
https://twitter.com/mtracey
Somewhat of a misogynist as well. This morning he's continued with his obsessive dissing of Lena Dunham. Mr. Tracey's rantings wouldn't be out of place in a Trump twitter feed. He's obviously let his disappointment about the results of the Democratic Primary become hatred (that word definitely applies) of Ms. Clinton, and anyone he can insult who has associated with her.
Why you thought his not-policy musings were worth reading, or worse yet sharing on MOL, is a mystery.
So you admit that the question I asked had nothing to do with Comey's second letter. And you "attack the messenger" -- Michael Tracey -- to distract from the substance of what Tracey said.
Just a petty attempt to cover up the fact that you realized that your attempt to label my post as "anti-Hillary" was a blunder. With a little McCarthyism of guilt-by-association.
No, I admit to what I wrote. You can interpret or obsess however you want, but I don't have to agree with it. Thanks for adding the gratuitous insults.
And I commented on the SUBSTANCE of what Mr. Tracey has written - so it is wrong to call that "attack the messenger". For people who don't want to risk clicking on the link to read his tweets, here's an example of what I was talking about. Apparently Lena Dunham wrote something encouraging people to vote for Ms. Clinton, and not vote for Jill Stein (don't get me started on Dr. Stein, but I digress). I assume Ms. Dunham wrote it in her characteristic style. Earlier this morning, Mr. Tracey had comments typical of him:
"Not only is Lena Dunham obnoxious and self-important, she's just plain stupid"
https://twitter.com/mtracey/status/795610614555181056
"Her post doesn't even make sense; I'm pretty sure she just wanted to tell a little story about her sex history and relate it to the election"
https://twitter.com/mtracey/status/795612457460961284
That's an example of his "substance".
Time out of this tense election for a yuk:
During a recent CNN panel flagged by Deadspin, Hughes ripped the Clinton campaign for having Jay Z perform a GOTV concert on their behalf in Ohio. In particular, Hughes said she was disturbed by anti-police messages in one of the rapper’s music videos.
“One of his main videos starts off with a crowd throwing Mazel Tov cocktails at the police,” she said. “And that’s very much an anti-police message.”
Of course, the actual term Hughes was looking for as Molotov cocktails, as “mazel tov” is a Jewish phrase used to convey congratulations.
GL2 said:
Time out of this tense election for a yuk:
During a recent CNN panel flagged by Deadspin, Hughes ripped the Clinton campaign for having Jay Z perform a GOTV concert on their behalf in Ohio. In particular, Hughes said she was disturbed by anti-police messages in one of the rapper’s music videos.
“One of his main videos starts off with a crowd throwing Mazel Tov cocktails at the police,” she said. “And that’s very much an anti-police message.”
Of course, the actual term Hughes was looking for as Molotov cocktails, as “mazel tov” is a Jewish phrase used to convey congratulations.
LOL.
I love the comments - "Chanukah Lewisinski."
BG9 said:
The right wing is united. Don't let them fool you that they are not. If the election ends in the House, we will see the Republicans united in "electing" Trump. Unlike the Democrats, who are weak, weak, weak, who are disunited and agonize over trivialities.
My hunch is that if the election ended up in the House, its Democrats would be pretty united behind their party's nominee as well.
DaveSchmidt said:
BG9 said:
The right wing is united. Don't let them fool you that they are not. If the election ends in the House, we will see the Republicans united in "electing" Trump. Unlike the Democrats, who are weak, weak, weak, who are disunited and agonize over trivialities.
My hunch is that if the election ended up in the House, its Democrats would be pretty united behind their party's nominee as well.
I'm guessing BG9's point here was that the GOP will retain the House, and so would unanimously vote to elect Trump. No doubt the Dems would unite in opposition, but having a minority, would not really matter.
PVW said:
DaveSchmidt said:
BG9 said:
The right wing is united. Don't let them fool you that they are not. If the election ends in the House, we will see the Republicans united in "electing" Trump. Unlike the Democrats, who are weak, weak, weak, who are disunited and agonize over trivialities.
My hunch is that if the election ended up in the House, its Democrats would be pretty united behind their party's nominee as well.
I'm guessing BG9's point here was that the GOP will retain the House, and so would unanimously vote to elect Trump. No doubt the Dems would unite in opposition, but having a minority, would not really matter.
Yes.
And also that the Republicans who have distanced themselves from Trump will line up behind him when its really needed.
PVW said:
DaveSchmidt said:I'm guessing BG9's point here was that the GOP will retain the House, and so would unanimously vote to elect Trump. No doubt the Dems would unite in opposition, but having a minority, would not really matter.
BG9 said:My hunch is that if the election ended up in the House, its Democrats would be pretty united behind their party's nominee as well.
The right wing is united. Don't let them fool you that they are not. If the election ends in the House, we will see the Republicans united in "electing" Trump. Unlike the Democrats, who are weak, weak, weak, who are disunited and agonize over trivialities.
Sorry. I misread the point as being that the Democrats, unlike the G.O.P., are weak, weak, weak and too disunited to do the same if they controlled the House.
nohero said:
paulsurovell said:
nohero said:
paulsurovell said:
(1) I thought you said that this thread wasn't about me.
(2) Do you know "how the 'interesting question' turned out?' "
(3) Do you consider the "interesting question" to be an "anti-Hillary claim?"
(1) Obviously, that's out of my control, since you posted a whole heap of "you" yesterday in this thread. Fortunately, the thread topic (misleading title and all) is moot, dead, gone to join the heavenly choir, and is an "ex-topic". So it can be about anything now, I suppose.
(2) Not near the top of anything I think is important to speculate about, although that's where you and I differ.
(3) Since its meant to cast Secretary Clinton in a negative light (something about letting Weiner get close to classified info, or something like that), the answer is obviously, "Yes". The person who writes the twitter feed that you quoted certainly thinks so (You didn't provide a cite or link, but it's easily found with "the Google").
It's uncharacteristic of you to leave out citation information like that, but having read tweets from that gentleman, a Mr. Michael Tracey, it might be because he's a real Hillary-hating, stereotype-of-a-Bernie-Bro piece of work.
https://twitter.com/mtracey
Somewhat of a misogynist as well. This morning he's continued with his obsessive dissing of Lena Dunham. Mr. Tracey's rantings wouldn't be out of place in a Trump twitter feed. He's obviously let his disappointment about the results of the Democratic Primary become hatred (that word definitely applies) of Ms. Clinton, and anyone he can insult who has associated with her.
Why you thought his not-policy musings were worth reading, or worse yet sharing on MOL, is a mystery.
So you admit that the question I asked had nothing to do with Comey's second letter. And you "attack the messenger" -- Michael Tracey -- to distract from the substance of what Tracey said.
Just a petty attempt to cover up the fact that you realized that your attempt to label my post as "anti-Hillary" was a blunder. With a little McCarthyism of guilt-by-association.
No, I admit to what I wrote. You can interpret or obsess however you want, but I don't have to agree with it. Thanks for adding the gratuitous insults.
And I commented on the SUBSTANCE of what Mr. Tracey has written - so it is wrong to call that "attack the messenger". For people who don't want to risk clicking on the link to read his tweets, here's an example of what I was talking about. Apparently Lena Dunham wrote something encouraging people to vote for Ms. Clinton, and not vote for Jill Stein (don't get me started on Dr. Stein, but I digress). I assume Ms. Dunham wrote it in her characteristic style. Earlier this morning, Mr. Tracey had comments typical of him:
"Not only is Lena Dunham obnoxious and self-important, she's just plain stupid"
https://twitter.com/mtracey/status/795610614555181056
"Her post doesn't even make sense; I'm pretty sure she just wanted to tell a little story about her sex history and relate it to the election"
https://twitter.com/mtracey/status/795612457460961284
That's an example of his "substance".
You're writing about the substance of something that has nothing to do with what I quoted.
You're just continuing to cover up and distract attention from your original blunder. And cotinuing to throw in a little more McCarthyite guilt-by-association.
In a rational world, there would be enough Republicans to unite with Democrats in the House to elect someone other than Trump in the case of an Electoral College tie.
BG9 said:
PVW said:
DaveSchmidt said:
BG9 said:
The right wing is united. Don't let them fool you that they are not. If the election ends in the House, we will see the Republicans united in "electing" Trump. Unlike the Democrats, who are weak, weak, weak, who are disunited and agonize over trivialities.
My hunch is that if the election ended up in the House, its Democrats would be pretty united behind their party's nominee as well.
I'm guessing BG9's point here was that the GOP will retain the House, and so would unanimously vote to elect Trump. No doubt the Dems would unite in opposition, but having a minority, would not really matter.
Yes.
And also that the Republicans who have distanced themselves from Trump will line up behind him when its really needed.
ml1 said:
In a rational world, there would be enough Republicans to unite with Democrats in the House to elect someone other than Trump in the case of an Electoral College tie.
One "difficulty factor" is that if the election goes to the House, under the Constitution the vote is by state, not as individual members. California (most House members) and a state with one House member, each have one vote. Given the expected results this year, the state delegations count favors the GOP. There are all sorts of permutations where more House members vote for one candidate, but the other candidate wins.
That being said, the House only picks the President. Under the Constitution, the Senate picks the Vice President, and there each Senator has a vote. If the Democrats take the Senate, then in the event of a tie the President could be Trump, and the Vice President could be Kaine. Actually, in the Senate they probably could elect Ms. Clinton as Vice President, since I don't think they have to follow the ballot lines.
Now THAT would be interesting!
paulsurovell said:
nohero said:You're writing about the substance of something that has nothing to do with what I quoted.
paulsurovell said:No, I admit to what I wrote. You can interpret or obsess however you want, but I don't have to agree with it. Thanks for adding the gratuitous insults.
So you admit that the question I asked had nothing to do with Comey's second letter. And you "attack the messenger" -- Michael Tracey -- to distract from the substance of what Tracey said.
Just a petty attempt to cover up the fact that you realized that your attempt to label my post as "anti-Hillary" was a blunder. With a little McCarthyism of guilt-by-association.
And I commented on the SUBSTANCE of what Mr. Tracey has written - so it is wrong to call that "attack the messenger". For people who don't want to risk clicking on the link to read his tweets, here's an example of what I was talking about. Apparently Lena Dunham wrote something encouraging people to vote for Ms. Clinton, and not vote for Jill Stein (don't get me started on Dr. Stein, but I digress). I assume Ms. Dunham wrote it in her characteristic style. Earlier this morning, Mr. Tracey had comments typical of him:
"Not only is Lena Dunham obnoxious and self-important, she's just plain stupid"
https://twitter.com/mtracey/status/795610614555181056
"Her post doesn't even make sense; I'm pretty sure she just wanted to tell a little story about her sex history and relate it to the election"
https://twitter.com/mtracey/status/795612457460961284
That's an example of his "substance".
You're just continuing to cover up and distract attention from your original blunder. And cotinuing to throw in a little more McCarthyite guilt-by-association.
Three thoughts:
1. You wrote that I should comment on the substance of what Mr. Tracey writes, and I did. Once again, thank you for the gratuitous insults. You're much too generous, I have more than enough, now.
2. I can't believe you think his silly musing ("What are the odds that Weiner was surreptitiously monitoring/copying Huma's communications w/ HRC") is worth wasting time on. I don't understand why you'd spend any time contemplating his fantasy of an email ménage à trois among HRC, Huma, and "Carlos Danger". As my brother said to me this morning on the phone, "Not only do I not care about the emails, I wouldn't care if Hillary was sexting with Anthony Weiner, and her IT guy was a Russian spy working for China."
3. "Lighten up, Francis."
drummerboy said:
sh** is fu***** up and bull****
Gotta keep my social media accounts separate. Went to "Like" this"!!
nohero said:
paulsurovell said:
nohero said:You're writing about the substance of something that has nothing to do with what I quoted.
paulsurovell said:No, I admit to what I wrote. You can interpret or obsess however you want, but I don't have to agree with it. Thanks for adding the gratuitous insults.
So you admit that the question I asked had nothing to do with Comey's second letter. And you "attack the messenger" -- Michael Tracey -- to distract from the substance of what Tracey said.
Just a petty attempt to cover up the fact that you realized that your attempt to label my post as "anti-Hillary" was a blunder. With a little McCarthyism of guilt-by-association.
And I commented on the SUBSTANCE of what Mr. Tracey has written - so it is wrong to call that "attack the messenger". For people who don't want to risk clicking on the link to read his tweets, here's an example of what I was talking about. Apparently Lena Dunham wrote something encouraging people to vote for Ms. Clinton, and not vote for Jill Stein (don't get me started on Dr. Stein, but I digress). I assume Ms. Dunham wrote it in her characteristic style. Earlier this morning, Mr. Tracey had comments typical of him:
"Not only is Lena Dunham obnoxious and self-important, she's just plain stupid"
https://twitter.com/mtracey/status/795610614555181056
"Her post doesn't even make sense; I'm pretty sure she just wanted to tell a little story about her sex history and relate it to the election"
https://twitter.com/mtracey/status/795612457460961284
That's an example of his "substance".
You're just continuing to cover up and distract attention from your original blunder. And cotinuing to throw in a little more McCarthyite guilt-by-association.
Three thoughts:
1. You wrote that I should comment on the substance of what Mr. Tracey writes, and I did. Once again, thank you for the gratuitous insults. You're much too generous, I have more than enough, now.
2. I can't believe you think his silly musing ("What are the odds that Weiner was surreptitiously monitoring/copying Huma's communications w/ HRC") is worth wasting time on. I don't understand why you'd spend any time contemplating his fantasy of an email ménage à trois among HRC, Huma, and "Carlos Danger". As my brother said to me this morning on the phone, "Not only do I not care about the emails, I wouldn't care if Hillary was sexting with Anthony Weiner, and her IT guy was a Russian spy working for China."
3. "Lighten up, Francis."
(1) This statement "You wrote that I should comment on the substance of what Mr. Tracey writes" is a blatant falsehood (I'm trying to be as diplomatic as possible here).
( 2) You reintroduced Tracey's musing, so the time spent on this is your doing.
(3) Look in the mirror.
paulsurovell said:
nohero said:(1) This statement "You wrote that I should comment on the substance of what Mr. Tracey writes" is a blatant falsehood (I'm trying to be as diplomatic as possible here).
Three thoughts:
1. You wrote that I should comment on the substance of what Mr. Tracey writes, and I did. Once again, thank you for the gratuitous insults. You're much too generous, I have more than enough, now.
2. I can't believe you think his silly musing ("What are the odds that Weiner was surreptitiously monitoring/copying Huma's communications w/ HRC") is worth wasting time on. I don't understand why you'd spend any time contemplating his fantasy of an email ménage à trois among HRC, Huma, and "Carlos Danger". As my brother said to me this morning on the phone, "Not only do I not care about the emails, I wouldn't care if Hillary was sexting with Anthony Weiner, and her IT guy was a Russian spy working for China."
3. "Lighten up, Francis."
( 2) You reintroduced Tracey's musing, so the time spent on this is your doing.
(3) Look in the mirror.
Three more thoughts (hey, this could be an MOL game, no?) -
1. My commenting on the misogynist you quoted was on the substance. That's not a falsehood. You're too kind in showering me with gratuitous insults, btw.
2. The operative prefix is "re". You cited the guy, and if I responded to that you can't blame me.
3. I can look in the mirror, and I see a person who has posted some lame attempts at humor in this thread. And you haven't, so "lighten up" applies more to you.
Any chance of changing the thread title? Or should we just wait for the next "investigation?" Because, you know, "she-devil."
nohero said:
paulsurovell said:
nohero said:(1) This statement "You wrote that I should comment on the substance of what Mr. Tracey writes" is a blatant falsehood (I'm trying to be as diplomatic as possible here).
Three thoughts:
1. You wrote that I should comment on the substance of what Mr. Tracey writes, and I did. Once again, thank you for the gratuitous insults. You're much too generous, I have more than enough, now.
2. I can't believe you think his silly musing ("What are the odds that Weiner was surreptitiously monitoring/copying Huma's communications w/ HRC") is worth wasting time on. I don't understand why you'd spend any time contemplating his fantasy of an email ménage à trois among HRC, Huma, and "Carlos Danger". As my brother said to me this morning on the phone, "Not only do I not care about the emails, I wouldn't care if Hillary was sexting with Anthony Weiner, and her IT guy was a Russian spy working for China."
3. "Lighten up, Francis."
( 2) You reintroduced Tracey's musing, so the time spent on this is your doing.
(3) Look in the mirror.
Three more thoughts (hey, this could be an MOL game, no?) -
1. My commenting on the misogynist you quoted was on the substance. That's not a falsehood. You're too kind in showering me with gratuitous insults, btw.
2. The operative prefix is "re". You cited the guy, and if I responded to that you can't blame me.
3. I can look in the mirror, and I see a person who has posted some lame attempts at humor in this thread. And you haven't, so "lighten up" applies more to you.
(1) Yeah, but you didn't comment on the quote that I posted, which is why your statement "You wrote that I should comment on the substance of what Mr. Tracey writes, and I did" is a falsehood (my bold).
(2) What is operative is that you reintroduced a dormant quote and then suggested that it's not "worth wasting time on." Nothing wrong with contradicting yourself, but doesn't speak well when you try to blame your contradiction on someone else.
(3) Agree with the word "lame."
Borowitz...
WASHINGTON (The Borowitz Report)—James Comey, the F.B.I. director, held a press conference on Sunday to “regretfully announce” that Hillary Clinton had committed no crimes related to her e-mails while Secretary of State.
“It is with a deep sense of sadness in my heart that I report that Hillary Clinton committed no crimes,” a visibly emotional Comey said.
Calling the discovery that Clinton could not be prosecuted for wrongdoing “probably the darkest hour of my career at the F.B.I.,” Comey said that he would try to move on from what he called “a shattering disappointment for me personally.”
“No one ever said this job would be a picnic,” he said. “As dismayed as I was to learn that Hillary Clinton committed no crimes, it’s my duty as a professional to find a way forward somehow.”
hoops said:
isnt Glenn Greenwald throwing stones here when he himself lives in a very large glass house?
Frankly he claimed lies by Eichenwald but never could refute those claims, so he smeared it as conspiracy theory.
Maybe Greenwald is correct and maybe a low-level Sputnik staffer made a mistake on one email - but how does that come to pass? If wikileaks is doing this work on their own, lol sure, right, then how is the identical mistake there? Im not buying Sputnik as a free investigative press, how do they come by internal DNC and Posdesta emails?
ETA: calling what wikileaks and the Russians have done here "work" is super big-lie worthy. this isnt work, its crime.
I trust Greenwald far less than I trust Eichenwald, I wonder whose axe is grindy-er.
Glenn Greenwald's tweet last night on Kurt Eichenwald:
Philadelphia International Airport has a way of making people act like that.
DaveSchmidt said:
Philadelphia International Airport has a way of making people act like that.
You've got a point.
nakaille said:
Any chance of changing the thread title? Or should we just wait for the next "investigation?" Because, you know, "she-devil."
@nakaille, no need to change the thread title. Your second question came true. Sean Hannity explains it all.
This link has Hannity, Sebastian Gorka, all the All Stars. It's back on!
For Sale
-
REVO luggage $100
More info -
2007 Honda Fit $4,400
More info
Garage Sales
-
House Contents Sale - Rain or Shine Sale Date: May 18, 2024
More info
Free Items
Sponsored Business
Promote your business here - Businesses get highlighted throughout the site and you can add a deal.
Advertisement
So you admit that the question I asked had nothing to do with Comey's second letter. And you "attack the messenger" -- Michael Tracey -- to distract from the substance of what Tracey said.
Just a petty attempt to cover up the fact that you realized that your attempt to label my post as "anti-Hillary" was a blunder. With a little McCarthyism of guilt-by-association.