HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Retired » Retired Forums » 2016 Postmortem (Forum) » Here's a link to the 296 ...

Thu Aug 11, 2016, 09:26 AM

Here's a link to the 296 pages dumped by Judicial Watch this week.

Do you see any problems? I don't see any "pay to play" evidence.

This reminds me of the WikiLeaks dump right before the convention. You have to wade through hundreds of pages, and then there's nothing really there. And all the press does is report rumors they heard from other reporters

http://www.judicialwatch.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/08/JW-v-State-Abedin-production-9-00684-2.pdf#page=296&zoom=160,-70,392

11 replies, 749 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 11 replies Author Time Post
Reply Here's a link to the 296 pages dumped by Judicial Watch this week. (Original post)
lapucelle Aug 2016 OP
bananakabob Aug 2016 #1
lapucelle Aug 2016 #3
LAS14 Aug 2016 #2
Wilms Aug 2016 #4
lapucelle Aug 2016 #7
Wilms Aug 2016 #9
lapucelle Aug 2016 #10
Wilms Aug 2016 #11
maxrandb Aug 2016 #5
JaneQPublic Aug 2016 #6
Demsrule86 Aug 2016 #8

Response to lapucelle (Original post)

Thu Aug 11, 2016, 09:28 AM

1. Meh.

 

Judicial Watch is a partisan right wing organisation and has shown no reason to be taken seriously by rational individuals.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bananakabob (Reply #1)

Thu Aug 11, 2016, 09:41 AM

3. I don't find them credible, but that isn't stopping the MSM from reporting

the damaging rumors based on extremely tenuous connections that Judicial Watch is floating.

I like to have all the facts available when I phone bank and canvas. I like to be able to say that I read the 296 pages, and there's nothing much there. I found it helpful in providing talking points after the pre-convention DNC document dump.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to lapucelle (Original post)

Thu Aug 11, 2016, 09:29 AM

2. Exactly!

"And all the press does is report rumors they heard from other reporters"

That's certainly my impression. See my post


http://www.democraticunderground.com/12512358402

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to lapucelle (Original post)

Thu Aug 11, 2016, 09:44 AM

4. Rumors?

 

Do you have any links demonstrating the press reporting rumors they heard from other reporters?

I've only seen the reports where the reporters are reporting on the actual content of the email.

Like this one: http://www.cnn.com/2016/08/09/politics/hillary-clinton-emails-judicial-watch/



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Wilms (Reply #4)

Thu Aug 11, 2016, 10:04 AM

7. From your link

"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."

Yup. Sounds like a rumor to me.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to lapucelle (Reply #7)

Thu Aug 11, 2016, 10:09 AM

9. And the email content?

 

Do you have any comment on that? I called the State Dept. to "offer insight" and they NEVER got back to me.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Wilms (Reply #9)

Thu Aug 11, 2016, 10:20 AM

10. What email content?

I don't even understand what your post means. When did you call the State Department?

Sorry, but I don't play this game.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to lapucelle (Reply #10)

Thu Aug 11, 2016, 10:28 AM

11. The link I provided quoted content of email.

 

But never mind that.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to lapucelle (Original post)

Thu Aug 11, 2016, 09:45 AM

5. It's one thing for the MSM to become

Stenographers for the RNC, but when you've whored yourself out to an organization like Judicial Watch, or a person like Larry KKKlayman, you've gone beyond the pale.

Judicial Watch is nothing but a 21ST Century equivalent of the Salem Witch Hunts.

Next thing you know the MSM will be checking to see if Hillary weighs more than a goose.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to lapucelle (Original post)

Thu Aug 11, 2016, 09:46 AM

6. Smoke but no fire.

When the story was first released, the news media jumped on it with both feet, presumably just to provide balance against all the Trump train wrecks.

But it was soon confirmed there was no quid pro quo (e.g., the billionaire requesting ambassador access never received it). So the new story soon devolved into cable news folks just shaking their heads and mumbling, "Hey, Hillary and her emails -- how `bout that!"

Nice try, but there's no there there.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to lapucelle (Original post)

Thu Aug 11, 2016, 10:07 AM

8. I looked at it

Nothing to see...looks like what they call networking to me ...trying to put people together or find jobs for friend...ooooh scary. A big nothing.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread