Well that sucks! smh
Too late. It’s already out there in the ether. Doesn’t matter if there are 150 agents or 2. The lie has already traveled half way around the world.
(Unfortunately, partially spread by some on the Left).
Fewer than 50 still sounds like a significant number, assuming “fewer than 50” is correct and doesn’t mean 1 or 2. I hope the FBI completes is investigation before the Democratic convention…
It’s not. Little pieces are doled out depending on who is where, who has things going on, etc. Also, they need people to read through all those emails. The FBI isn’t going to trust State to do it for investigative purposes. When I had my clearance done, I personally know of 12 agents who worked on it not including the polygrapher they flew from Seattle to DC for my polygraph. I’m a nobody.
Oh, for fuck’s sake. How many fucking times, and how many fucking ways, is this complete, utter nonsense going to be recycled?
- The use of a private email server for government business was perfectly legal and perfectly common when Clinton used it. The law did not change until AFTER she left office.
- No classified information was sent via private email.
- Only a tiny handful of emails were RETROACTIVELY “classified” by overzealous, partisan hacks looking to create a controversy (i.e., “classifying” references to a publicly published news article).
- All the rest is media argle-bargle.
When will they learn not to trust GOP sources?
I liked the 147 # better.
At the end of the day the FBI could say, “Responding to gop pressure, we put 147 agents on Secretary Clinton’s e-mails and found NOTHING!”
To reflect how much damage the republican brand has sustained over the past seven years of obstruction, please use lower case letters when referring to the former Grand Old Party…gop. Your spell checker won’t like it as, like gop, it is slow to accept reality.
thanks for this post, i wish someone at the nyt or wp would say just that.
Ah yes, two facts sourced to a single unnamed Republican source who is totally not named “Issa” that are essential to the accusatory tone of the article fixed by a “correction” without any attempt to assess whether the entire story’s point has been seriously undermined or even whether it’s wise to let themselves get played for fools time and time again. Yep, must be reading the New York Times.
Wait, what?
I don’t remember the name of the Journo that made the " well it was just so much fun " comment when asked why the press made so many errors in their writing on Al Gore…but it happened. Ill bet it’s fun going after Clinton too. This isn’t the first “reporting” That was in error but favored the GOP’s position.
What? You mean this story is overblown? Well, you could knock me over with a feather!
Ah, Whitewater 2.0. I’m sure the FBI, that organization that was caught (along with others) flatfooted over 9/11 will be looking for Hillary’s role in that as well. Oh, and of course, here is your “October surprise.”
I’ve been a subscriber to thge Post for decades, and I have two questions for them:
(1) Who was the Congressional source “briefed” by Comey who gave them the 147 number. Could it have been (Gasp!) a Republican Congressman or Senator who might just have a political axe to grind here? Come on, Post, out with it.
(2) Since the article was splashed all over page 1 and was written to seem that an indictment was at hand, will the retraction occupy the same page 1 space as the original (non) story?
The Hill is still using the 147 number. Read another report from this morning with that inflated number. It’s now in the RW lexicon and no one will believe otherwise.
If Democrats could list facts, this list would be widepsread and common knowledge.
So true. It reminds of the NYT’s first article creating the White Water scandal. I read the article four or five times and couldn’t figure out what was done wrong. It turned out nothing was done wrong. Did the Times ever apologize? Don’t remember it if they did.
This just makes Hillary stronger. There’s already a strong perception among Democrats that the press subjects the Clintons to an unprecedented and unfair level of scrutiny and this just reinforces that idea. Instead of cowering in the face of withering criticism, Hillary stands strong.
Actually its Higgery Jiggery…much more serious…in higgity biggity scheme of things!