Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think the Podesta emails are causing some harm. It shows the whole Clinton foundation as a quasi scheme to get the Clintons rich and give access to its donors.

OP here. This seems more logical to me. The Podesta e-mails certainly bothered me. I was surprised the polls didn't change when they came out. Maybe there is simply lag between when they were released and when polling data came back?

These new e-mails seem much ado about nothing so far. Why wouldn't a politician have e-mails about another politician in his inbox?

I don't know how people could take stolen, confidential emails that were so freaking boring so seriously in their choice of candidates.

People are ridiculous.

I early voted, so even though it bothered me it didn't change my vote. The e-mails primarily bothered me because the limited faith I had in the media was shaken further. I can now better understand what the right wing types are driving at when they talk about the "mainstream media." Obviously Drudge / Breitbart have a totally warped version of the world, but I can no longer trust that NYT and Washington Post will ever provide me with an actual reflection of reality. I still trust them not to literally lie but I can no longer trust them to not to twist facts, purposefully omit things, hype up certain points and play down others, use selective quotations, insert editorial type content into factual reporting and even have one side of the debate literally write their paper for them. It's a problem I noticed for years and seemed to be getting worse and was now confirmed in writing. I wouldn't have put it past the political types to try to warp the debate so much, but I didn't think the upper echelons of the profession of journalism would be so brazenly corrupt / unethical. It was a reminder I need to read widely before having an opinion on anything.

Also paying people to cause violence at rallies is totally beyond the pale. I actually did not expect that. Maybe I am just naive.

I also know Rubio basically said Republicans shouldn't make too much of this because what if it was their e-mails? Which was basically an admission that these are all terrible people all around. Which I suppose I already knew but needed to be reminded of.

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This whole thing is reminding me more and more of the Salem witch trials. Mass hysteria over nothing.

This exactly. I can understand this from the Trumpsters, but I don't understand it from the others.

This is what happens, Jeff, when you idealize the people who align with your political view. while vilifying those who don't.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:We don't actually "know" whether there are thousands of emails, pp. It could be 1 email, it could be 10,000 emails. We know NOTHING.

NP. We don't know anything about the content. But per reports, officials say they number in the thousands. So you are incorrect about that.

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This whole thing is reminding me more and more of the Salem witch trials. Mass hysteria over nothing.

This exactly. I can understand this from the Trumpsters, but I don't understand it from the others.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Thanks. So if we have no clue about the context of the e-mails, why would just the fact that there are more e-mails cause the polls to move? The actual e-mails that have been uncovered so far (like the Podesta ones) didn't seem to move the polls that much, so why are these new e-mails so important?

Sure sounds like you've been giving a great deal of though to this.

Anonymous wrote:We don't actually "know" whether there are thousands of emails, pp. It could be 1 email, it could be 10,000 emails. We know NOTHING.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think the Podesta emails are causing some harm. It shows the whole Clinton foundation as a quasi scheme to get the Clintons rich and give access to its donors.

No, the stolen Podesta emails don't show that.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Thanks. So if we have no clue about the context of the e-mails, why would just the fact that there are more e-mails cause the polls to move? The actual e-mails that have been uncovered so far (like the Podesta ones) didn't seem to move the polls that much, so why are these new e-mails so important?

Because American voters are dumb shits with the attention span of a kumquat.

Anonymous wrote:
Thanks. So if we have no clue about the context of the e-mails, why would just the fact that there are more e-mails cause the polls to move? The actual e-mails that have been uncovered so far (like the Podesta ones) didn't seem to move the polls that much, so why are these new e-mails so important?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think the Podesta emails are causing some harm. It shows the whole Clinton foundation as a quasi scheme to get the Clintons rich and give access to its donors.

OP here. This seems more logical to me. The Podesta e-mails certainly bothered me. I was surprised the polls didn't change when they came out. Maybe there is simply lag between when they were released and when polling data came back?

These new e-mails seem much ado about nothing so far. Why wouldn't a politician have e-mails about another politician in his inbox?

I don't know how people could take stolen, confidential emails that were so freaking boring so seriously in their choice of candidates.

People are ridiculous.

I early voted, so even though it bothered me it didn't change my vote. The e-mails primarily bothered me because the limited faith I had in the media was shaken further. I can now better understand what the right wing types are driving at when they talk about the "mainstream media." Obviously Drudge / Breitbart have a totally warped version of the world, but I can no longer trust that NYT and Washington Post will ever provide me with an actual reflection of reality. I still trust them not to literally lie but I can no longer trust them to not to twist facts, purposefully omit things, hype up certain points and play down others, use selective quotations, insert editorial type content into factual reporting and even have one side of the debate literally write their paper for them. It's a problem I noticed for years and seemed to be getting worse and was now confirmed in writing. I wouldn't have put it past the political types to try to warp the debate so much, but I didn't think the upper echelons of the profession of journalism would be so brazenly corrupt / unethical. It was a reminder I need to read widely before having an opinion on anything.

Also paying people to cause violence at rallies is totally beyond the pale. I actually did not expect that. Maybe I am just naive.

Anonymous wrote:I don’t know that you will get any nonpartisan responses here, OP, but I will give it a shot and attempt to be objective.

Back in July, Comey announced that no indictment would be sought against Hillary for anything she had done WRT the server/email/etc. He was then called to Congress to testify about the decision he made because Congress felt that there was ample evidence to issue an indictment or convene a Grand Jury. At least the Republican members felt this way.
At that time, he indicated that the investigation into Clinton’s server was essentially complete and that nothing more would be done unless and until other evidence was presented that warranted further investigation.

On Friday, he announced that new evidence has been presented. We later found out that this was found while the FBI was investigating the Weiner sexting case. Because of this new evidence, he informed Congress that he needed to amend his previous testimony and that the FBI would be investigating this new evidence which appeared to have a connection to the Clinton email case.

There has been a lot of speculation about what is in the emails that have since been discovered. A lot of speculation. What we have heard is that there are thousands of emails.
Since nobody knows what exactly is in the emails, these questions have arisen:

1. Could these be some of the emails that Hillary deleted before turning over the emails to State?
2. Who is the author of these emails.... Hillary? Huma? Weiner?
3. Is there any classified information in these emails?
4. Is there any other incriminating information in these emails (Clinton Foundation, for example)?
5. Are these emails purely personal?
6. Does the FBI know the content of these emails enough to have sent a letter to Congress to begin with?
7. Are these emails duplicates of what the FBI has already seen?
8. How did these emails get on a computer that reportedly belonged to Weiner?
9. Was Weiner privy to classified information when he did not have a clearance to view classified information?

None of these questions have been answered. And, because they haven’t, people are speculating.
I think that is it in a nutshell, but I am sure others will fill in information I omitted.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think the Podesta emails are causing some harm. It shows the whole Clinton foundation as a quasi scheme to get the Clintons rich and give access to its donors.

OP here. This seems more logical to me. The Podesta e-mails certainly bothered me. I was surprised the polls didn't change when they came out. Maybe there is simply lag between when they were released and when polling data came back?

These new e-mails seem much ado about nothing so far. Why wouldn't a politician have e-mails about another politician in his inbox?

I don't know how people could take stolen, confidential emails that were so freaking boring so seriously in their choice of candidates.

People are ridiculous.

Anonymous wrote:This whole thing is reminding me more and more of the Salem witch trials. Mass hysteria over nothing.