Discussion for article #235321
Oh for Christ’s sake, how is this “news”? It’s already been reported that she was asked by Issa about private email use in 2012. Is the New York Times really hurting that bad that they need to make click bait articles like this one? And TPM fell for it? SMH
7 Likes
Yea, like HRC is the only person who ignores letters from Issa. I think he’s on more spam filters than that prince in Nigeria.
17 Likes
Anyone feel like no one really cares about this story?
3 Likes
Only people who would never vote for her anyway care about this.
If she HAD used a separate account for private emails, she would still have been deciding what was public and what wasn’t… and we’d have the same stupid attacks that the private account “must” have nefarious hidden secrets.
Also, State Dept procedures TOLD staff to decide for themselves what emails should be permanently archived and what should be deleted even on the official server. She, like everyone else, would still have had full control over what was and wasn’t preserved.
In other words, there’s no there there.
6 Likes
It’s pretty much like so many other GOP “scandals”…they desperately want something that rises to the level of Watergate so they go on fishing expeditions and don’t just try to be better politicians and public servants.
1 Like
And actually do real work to earn the salaries that we pay them?
Ha!
I think it was really ill-advised for her to use the private email account for State Dept business, but you’re absolutely right: the only people who think this is truly a problem are Republicans who wouldn’t vote for her even if the GOP candidate was John Wayne Gacy.
3 Likes
Everyone fucking knew. And no, you’re not missing anything, Josh…unless you consider it “missing” something to forget to mention that the GOP/Teatrolls don’t fucking care what the truth is and neither does the MSM: they’re all going to fabricate whatever narrative they can to manufacture a nontroversy, particularly because the MSM has decided that Clinton needs to be “taken down a peg” to make the 2016 race “more interesting.”
6 Likes
I know, right? It’s like they get these jobs and just want to not do work. What do they think they are? Their version of the working poor?
Absolutely. I obviously feel that way, but my gut sense is that this is a big fat nothingburger for anyone but the RWNJs and perhaps some of the more right-leaning “independents.” The MSM is trying to add condiments and bacon and onion rings and a fat slice of cheese to dress it all up as meaningful, but underneath it’s still just a nothingburger.
2 Likes
Would explain why they accuse the poor on welfare of not working hard enough to find a job now, wouldn’t it?
This is it in a nutshell.
2 Likes
So, like, Becky asked Amanda like a month ago if she like Brad, because even though Brad wasn’t dating Becky any more Becky thought Amanda shouldn’t like Brad. But Amanda, like, totally didn’t say anything. So like, wow. You know?
3 Likes
It’s the media’s mantra: “Anything to bash a Democrat, especially a Clinton.”
1 Like
Asked by Issa, nuff said!
1 Like
Only became important because she was about to announce, now that she has it is doubly important for some… my take big funking deal…
1 Like
Just remember it was the Times’ scurrilous, debunked Whitewater reporting that kicked off the whole Clinton “scandal machine.”
(And fwiw, in December 2012 she was on her way out, so I’m guessing Issa’s discredited fishing expeditions weren’t her top priority.)
3 Likes
More flaccid attempts to throw fabricated shit at the wall to see if it sticks.
1 Like
Thank you; I’ve been making this point ad nauseum. That virtually no story mentions it tells you pretty much all you need to know about their “reporting” on this. I’ve always blamed right-wing browbeating, corporate ownership and careerism for our awful, awful political “journalism;” but when it comes to the Clintons, there really is a demonstrable bias.
1 Like