The Hillary Email / Benghazi Catch-All

NormanTheIntern wrote:

To be fair, Assange said like two weeks ago that the primary source of the DNC leaks was someone inside the DNC itself.

This, however, smacks as both an extra tin foilly conspiracy and no better than Trump's smear jobs.

I am also willing to bet this will rotate into Trump's stump speech.

Was that really what he said? I recall it as him stating that the real sources were the ones writing the mails, not that they were the ones leaking them.
Because he was annoyed about the lack of focus on the content of the mails for some reason...

farley3k wrote:

....ok I can buy that a bit. I still think his motivations are important but it shouldn't discredit what the information is.

It should be a separate discussion but the line is blurred enough to make that difficult.
The other thing that doesn't help is the rampant drawing of "if there is smoke there is fire" conclusions that overtly attempt to transpose the DNC's actions with HRC's.

I can understand conflating the DNC and Hillary, though. She's a very prominent, powerful member of the Party. And while there isn't absolute proof the DNC leaders were colluding with her for the nomination, it's pretty clear that's the case. While they are certainly separate entities with separate issues and it's possible all the pro-Hillary work was being done in the DNC without coordination from Hillary and/or her campaign, it's really unlikely. Which does tie her into these actions.

Criminally though? Because that is what is always inferred and is a popular conclusion to jump to.

Shadout wrote:

Because he was annoyed about the lack of focus on the content of the mails for some reason...

Turns out frivolous intra office discussions are less interesting than an attempt by Russian state sponsored hackers to affect the outcome of the American presidential elections. Who'd a thunk it?

WikiLeaks seems desperate now:

Hillary Clinton strategist Bob Beckel called for WikiLeaks editor Julian Assange to be assassinated. #DNCLeak

https://twitter.com/wikileaks/status...

Beckel did say that, only it was 6 years ago. Beckel also doesn't work for Clinton now nor at the time he said it. Snopes reports "But we found no evidence indicating that he has ever served as a Hillary Clinton campaign strategist."

fangblackbone wrote:
farley3k wrote:

....ok I can buy that a bit. I still think his motivations are important but it shouldn't discredit what the information is.

It should be a separate discussion but the line is blurred enough to make that difficult.

The other thing that doesn't help is the rampant drawing of "if there is smoke there is fire" conclusions that overtly attempt to transpose the DNC's actions with HRC's.

The reason this rumor Wikileaks is spreading is so effective (and bad) is that it taps into already an established rumor that the Clinton's have left a trail of bodies behind them.

It's also a bit of ghoulish grandstanding by Wikileaks because 1) the D.C. Metropolitan Police Department were already offering a $25,000 reward to anyone who could help them find Rich's killer, and 2) Rich's own family doesn't believe he was murdered by Hillary and certainly doesn't appreciate Wikileaks using their dead son as a chip in a political battle.

The "evidence" people have for Rich being killed by the Clinton's is that Rich was shot twice in the back, but he still had his wallet, watch, and phone on him so, the reasoning goes, it wasn't a robbery.

Those people neglect to mention the facts that the gunshots were heard by a patrolling D.C. police cruiser, which immediately responded; that Rich was still alive when the officer arrived on scene, something that a professional hitman likely wouldn't have happen; and, most importantly, that the neighborhood, while trendy, wasn't completely safe. The number of armed robberies within 1,000 feet of where Rich died had gone up from three in 2014-2015 to 14 in 2015-2016.

Some people, some smart people are talking about how. Look, she's not a. She's not a professional hit man. How could she be? She wants your. She's taking your guns and giving them to ISIS.

Personally I really, really hope that the sound bite (if there is one) is "Killary is killing again."

Not that it would hurt Trump with his base, but it would be the que for another round of condemn but still endorse nonsense from the likes of Paul Ryan.

Weird I guess this one's getting buried too.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/...

The Obama administration rejected requests from three FBI field offices that wanted to open public corruption probes of the Clinton Foundation, according to a report that added to headaches for Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton.

Alerted by banks to suspicious transactions, the FBI wanted to investigate conflicts of interest involving foreign donors to the foundation while Mrs. Clinton was secretary of state. But the Justice Department put the kibosh on the it, CNN reported.

Is there a source or link for the report in question? The linked Washington Times piece doesn't have one, nor does the Washington Examiner piece that apparently started this recent chain of reportage.

The closest thing I can find is a CNN piece on the latest round of email reveals, which is directly cited by this Federalist piece as a source for this, but it doesn't even really talk about the DOJ other than this paragraph near the end:

CNN wrote:

Early this year as the investigation into Clinton's private email server was in full swing, several FBI field offices approached the Justice Department asking to open a case regarding the relationship between the State Department and the Clinton Foundation, according to a law enforcement official. At the time, DOJ declined because it had looked into allegations surrounding the Clinton Foundation around a year earlier and found there wasn't sufficient evidence to open a case.

EDIT: It looks like the Washington Examiner piece has been updated to directly cite this CNN report as well.

I just think it's funny that someone thinks a story is being buried because it is being reported in the Washington Times, when the source is the CNN.

I mean, worst burial ever.

And yeah, I'd like more information. Because people wanting to investigate the clintons has hardly been indicative of them actually doing anything wrong. It's just what the rightwing Clinton haters have done for for decades now. Nothing has to be real to be propagated by copy and pasting to the internet as a real scandal.

Jayhawker wrote:

I just think it's funny that someone thinks a story is being buried because it is being reported in the Washington Times, when the source is the CNN.

I mean, worst burial ever.

I meant "buried under the metric ton of stupid coming from Trump's mouth", as was referenced by farley3k earlier in the thread.

Jayhawker wrote:

I just think it's funny that someone thinks a story is being buried because it is being reported in the Washington Times, when the source is the CNN.

I mean, worst burial ever.

And yeah, I'd like more information. Because people wanting to investigate the clintons has hardly been indicative of them actually doing anything wrong. It's just what the rightwing Clinton haters have done for for decades now. Nothing has to be real to be propagated by copy and pasting to the internet as a real scandal.

They've been screaming "wolf" for so long that some of us finally went out and bought some good earplugs.

NormanTheIntern wrote:
Jayhawker wrote:

I just think it's funny that someone thinks a story is being buried because it is being reported in the Washington Times, when the source is the CNN.

I mean, worst burial ever.

I meant "buried under the metric ton of stupid coming from Trump's mouth", as was referenced by farley3k earlier in the thread.

It is mind-boggling that they can't get him to use stuff like this.

NormanTheIntern wrote:
Jayhawker wrote:

I just think it's funny that someone thinks a story is being buried because it is being reported in the Washington Times, when the source is the CNN.

I mean, worst burial ever.

I meant "buried under the metric ton of stupid coming from Trump's mouth", as was referenced by farley3k earlier in the thread.

Oh, yeah. Trump's been pretty magnificent at being Hillary's biggest helper... mostly by burying anything negative on her with his own antics and idiocy. Clinton could be facing much tougher questions right now, but she's not because no one seems to be able to stop looking at the train wreck that is every time Trump opens his mouth lately.

A candidate who says literally nothing would probably be crushing Hillary right now, yeah.

I mean like a goldfish or a ham sandwich wearing a tiny suit would be winning easily.

I was thinking about a variation of this earlier today, that Trump is a woman's dream opponent. The stereotypical reasons that women can't do important things like be President are things like "think emotionally", "easily distracted", "have their feelings hurt too easily". I am pretty sure I recall some variation of all of those being mentioned against her eight years ago.

But in this election I've heard none of them, and I suspect it's largely because even the most clueless, anti-Hillary and anti-women people realize that Trump has all of those traits an order of magnitude more than Clinton does.

NormanTheIntern wrote:

A candidate who says literally nothing would probably be crushing Hillary right now, yeah.

I mean like a goldfish or a ham sandwich wearing a tiny suit would be winning easily.

I don't necessarily agree, but it would at least be a fight. That's why I figured the GOP would finally get around to taking Jeb. I mean, that dude can say nothing.

Jayhawker wrote:
NormanTheIntern wrote:

A candidate who says literally nothing would probably be crushing Hillary right now, yeah.

I mean like a goldfish or a ham sandwich wearing a tiny suit would be winning easily.

I don't necessarily agree, but it would at least be a fight. That's why I figured the GOP would finally get around to taking Jeb. I mean, that dude can say nothing.

well he can, he just should not.

NormanTheIntern wrote:
Jayhawker wrote:

I just think it's funny that someone thinks a story is being buried because it is being reported in the Washington Times, when the source is the CNN.

I mean, worst burial ever.

I meant "buried under the metric ton of stupid coming from Trump's mouth", as was referenced by farley3k earlier in the thread.

Well, it could also be getting buried because there's no "there" there and what little happened to be there provided just enough blood in the water to make conservatively-aligned outlets like the Washington Times and the Washington Examiner feel a little thirsty. But yeah, ultimately, a little more information would go a long way here.

I came across 2 hilariously fake articles today. They're running with the notion that the Clintons kill anyone who cross them.

BREAKING: Early morning explosion in DC leaves YET ANOTHER DNC staffer dead. This one is ridiculous because it doesn't even try to fudge the content support its headline. It just straight up lies.

Man Who Leaked Clinton’s Medical Records Found Dead. This one at least is internally consistent, only we're supposed to believe that this is a very real thing reported by The Russian Foreign Intelligence Service.

It's amazing how people eat this sh*t up.

Yonder wrote:

But in this election I've heard none of them, and I suspect it's largely because even the most clueless, anti-Hillary and anti-women people realize that Trump has all of those traits an order of magnitude more than Clinton does.

Something positive about Trump running for president is that if any future female candidate starts getting this kind of BS about being over-emotional, etc. because of her gender, then all she would need to do is point straight back to Trump.

Quintin_Stone wrote:

It's amazing how people eat this sh*t up.

And why tomorrow morning's headlines aren't "Donald Trump Dies in a Private Plane Crash."

What's this (relatively new) "she had someone shot" thing I'm seeing referenced in my Facebook feed?

Quintin_Stone wrote:

It's amazing how people eat this sh*t up.

IMAGE(http://i.imgur.com/JoEjorz.jpg)

It's funny, when Paul Wellstone died in a plane crash, I don't recall liberals speculating that Republicans did it. What is it about conspiracy theories that makes them seem more likely, or popular, on the Right? Or am I naive, are there liberal Glenn Becks and Alex Jones with huge followings that I just don't know about?

Robear wrote:

It's funny, when Paul Wellstone died in a plane crash, I don't recall liberals speculating that Republicans did it. What is it about conspiracy theories that makes them seem more likely, or popular, on the Right? Or am I naive, are there liberal Glenn Becks and Alex Jones with huge followings that I just don't know about?

Eh. I do remember people on the left speculating that.

wordsmythe wrote:

What's this (relatively new) "she had someone shot" thing I'm seeing referenced in my Facebook feed?

Warning: Daily Fail link
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...