Even the Wash Post is calling HRC a liar

[Redfish]

Hillary Clinton’s email story continues to get harder and harder to believe

read it and weep, libs and dems. Your terribly flawed candidate is going down the tubes to the liberal press.

might be time to break out the booze.

 

[EriktheRed]

And once again, a lot of speculation.

 

[Redfish]

And once again, a lot of speculation.

Its the Wash Post, dipshit. You know, the paper that never prints anything negative about any democrat.

When a liberal rag like the Post says she is a liar, you dems better pay attention, because once the left wing media turns on her, she is toast.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

I've said it more than once. They're going to shove Hillary under the bus and go with Biden/Sanders

 

[Redfish]

I've said it more than once. They're going to shove Hillary under the bus and go with Biden/Sanders

that's a possibility, Obama hates her, the DNC hates her, most dems in congress hate her.

If this keeps coming out, look for obozo to turn Lynch loose to indict her.

 

[Tresha91203]

And once again, a lot of speculation.

She did not release these purely professional emails as required. She lied, saying she turned over EVERYTHING work related. That is fact, not speculation.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Hillary Clinton’s email story continues to get harder and harder to believe

read it and weep, libs and dems. Your terribly flawed candidate is going down the tubes to the liberal press.

might be time to break out the booze.

So? I caught you lying the other day. Take a pill. Go to bed.

 

[320 Years of History]

Of all the stuff in the AP story to which Chris Cillizza refers, the last sentence in it is the most preposterous.

As for Chris Cillizza's blog post:

• His stories on Post-sponsored The Fix blog, which is just he modern day equivalent of a column, are not the views of The Washington Post's owners/publishers; the paper's views, when it/the owners/the publisher elects to share them, are found in pieces that are expressly designated as being the paper's stance. I do not see Mr. Cillizza listed as a member of the paper's editorial board. His views as expressed on his blog are his own.
• Mr. Cillizza does not cite any source for his graphic claim that half of Mrs. Clinton's emails were personal in nature and thus withheld. The AP story that drives his remarks only notes "tens of thousands" of emails. Well, "tens of thousands" of emails were turned over too, something on the order of 5+ tens of thousands.
• Much of what he writes in his blog post from his pie chart to the end is merely his opinion.
  
  • The latest batch of emails suggest that Clinton's filter to decide between the personal and the professional was far from foolproof. --> That is one of the things the discovery of the latest batch of emails can portend. Another thing it can portend is that the woman simply no longer had them to give when she was asked for them. I don't know the details of how Ms. Abedin come by the ones she released. Once I do know, I and everyone else will have a better understanding of what to make of Mrs. Clinton's not having released them
    
  • That these emails never saw the light of day before Monday — or before a conservative legal advocacy group petitioned for their release — opens up the possibility that there are plenty more like them that Clinton chose to delete but shouldn't have. --> That possibility has existed before the latest batch of emails appeared. It continues to exist. I doubt it'll ever not exist. Regardless of one's views on the matter, how could that possibly ever not have existed or be eliminated from the range of possible circumstances?
  • [That these emails never saw the light of day before Monday] provides more fodder for the Republican argument that Clinton appointing herself as judge, jury and executioner for her emails was, at best, a very, very bad decision and, at worst, something more nefarious than just bad judgment. --> As if the Republicans needed more fodder to air their speculations and innuendos in that regard. Hell, do GOP partisans need anything that's even real to do that? I don't think so.
  • But this email to Abedin — which came at the start of her four-year term in office — suggests a bit more active agency than Clinton has previously let on. "I think we need to get on this asap to be sure we know and design the system we want," doesn't strike me as Clinton simply wanting convenience and following the instructions of her IT people on how to make that happen. It reads to me as though Clinton is both far more aware of the email setup and far more engaged in how it should look than she generally lets on publicly. --> This is his opinion. I share his opinion. It stretches credulity to accept that one who wants mainly convenience would write about "the system [they] want." Maybe there's more context to be found in other communications about the design of the system? There sure had better be if the "convenience" claim is to "hold water" at all.
  • There's nothing in these emails that changes the basic political dynamic of the email controversy as Clinton seeks to win the White House this fall. Everything still depends on whether the Justice Department decides to indict Clinton or those close to her for purposely keeping information that the public had a right to know away from them. We've been waiting on the results of that FBI investigation for months now and, in truth, no one really knows when they will finally come. --> Well, he's right about that.
  • [R]evelations like Monday's — a chunk of previously undisclosed emails that are clearly professional in nature — lend further doubt to the story Clinton had told about why she set up a private server and how she handled it after leaving office. --> Well, yes and no.
    • Red: Yes, in a material way they do. No two ways about it. I could parse the statement to show a hole in it if I wanted to, and the hole I can identify is there, but that's rationally shaky ground I don't need to stand on.
    • Blue: No, they just don't. The don't because there already was doubt about how she handled the matter after leaving office, enough that the FBI is investigating the situation. Whatever doubt the discovery of the latest batch of emails presents, unless that batch convinces the FBI/prosecutors to bring charges, the the doubt is neither "further" or "lesser" than the doubt that was there before.
  • For a candidate already struggling to convince voters she is honest and trustworthy enough to be president, stories like this one are deeply problematic. --> I have to agree with him on this.

As for some of Mrs. Clinton's remarks:

• Clinton said that her main/only reason for using a private email server while at State was "convenience." She didn't want to carry around multiple devices for email, she explained. --> That seems to me a patently stupid and dubious, and flimsy assuming it's true, reason to cite for using her own personally maintained/owned email account. My phones back then supported multiple email accounts. So did my laptops. Now it may be that there is some regulation that prevents government personnel from having multiple email accounts on one device. I don't know. I suppose if there is such a regulation, the "convenience" reason is at least plausible, thus not so flimsy.

 

[Rexx Taylor]

I've said it more than once. They're going to shove Hillary under the bus and go with Biden/Sanders

Hillary:...well at the time, I didnt recall,, i got the information about the video from Huma, so I went with it. what difference does it make,,,bitch!

 

[Redfish]

Hillary Clinton’s email story continues to get harder and harder to believe

read it and weep, libs and dems. Your terribly flawed candidate is going down the tubes to the liberal press.

might be time to break out the booze.

So? I caught you lying the other day. Take a pill. Go to bed.

No, you did not. But "what difference at this point does it make?"

Your bitch is being called out for her lies and corruption by the left wing media. Its the beginning of the end for her. Deal with it.

 

[Ridgerunner]

that's a possibility, Obama hates her, the DNC hates her, most dems in congress hate her.

If this keeps coming out, look for obozo to turn Lynch loose to indict her.

Unfortunately I don't think this will happen. pbo is going to cover his ass and if he let's mrs Clinton be indicted he is going down also. His main job right now is to protect himself and his legacy.

 

[Redfish]

that's a possibility, Obama hates her, the DNC hates her, most dems in congress hate her.

If this keeps coming out, look for obozo to turn Lynch loose to indict her.

Unfortunately I don't think this will happen. pbo is going to cover his ass and if he let's mrs Clinton be indicted he is going down also. His main job right now is to protect himself and his legacy.

agree, but it could come down to "her or me" and then we all know which way he will go.