Media on Comey Letter ‘Who Cares if the Ref Was Paid off-a Better Team Would Have Won Anyway?
This is the media take-ok there was the Comey letter, and Russian interference but these are small, unimportant details.
Obvious, yet many Dems disagree: “A better candidate than Clinton would not have been vulnerable to Comey letter” https://t.co/ICTYiamJ3v
— Shadi Hamid (@shadihamid) May 3, 2017
Noah Rothman uses the same logic here.
“I was the candidate,” Clinton said in a post-election interview with CNN’s Christiane Amanpour. “I take absolute personal responsibility.” If she had left it at that, it would have been a boring interview. It also might have facilitated the kind of growth and healing of which Democrats have been deprived in their state of denial. But she didn’t stop there. What followed was a cascade of excuses for Clinton’s behavior that laid blame at the feet of everyone but herself.“If the election had been on October 27, I would be your president,” Clinton said. “I was on the way to winning until a combination of Jim Comey’s letter on October 28 and Russian WikiLeaks raised doubts in the minds of people who were inclined to vote for me and got scared off.” Clinton blamed the press for failing to provide context in reporting on the FBI director’s letter to Congress. That letter informed the legislature that the FBI had discovered emails originating in Clinton’s illicit server on a computer belonging to Anthony Weiner, who was under investigation for allegedly having improper contacts with a minor. How’s that for context?
How is it? It raises a lot more questions than it answers which is the whole point. Such a vague letter just 11 days before the election was shocking irresponsible and a total abuse of power by the Republican Comey and his Republican Hillary hater agents at the FBI. A whole lot of questions are begged. How about the context that he hadn’t even looked at the emails yet and ultimatley discovered there was nothing incriminating in them.
How about the context of Trump being investigated for colluding with Russian interference. How about that context?
There is a whole lot of context missing from Rotham’s narrative-like the fact that those emails may well have been planted on Weiner’s laptop by the NYPD and NY FBI. I’m guessing Rothman thinks this is too much context. He just wants enough context to obscure and raise more questions than answers.
“The FBI didn’t create those emails, nor did they force Clinton to use a personal server exclusively when she served as the Secretary of State. Clinton did that herself. Congress did not vest in Comey prosecutorial discretion in the Clinton case, rendering him Congress’s point person on this investigation. Former Attorney General Loretta Lynch did that when she took an ill-considered private meeting with Clinton’s husband. These weren’t exogenous events over which the former first lady had no control, no matter how desperately her committed supporters would like to rob her of agency.”
How does it rob her of agency? Hillary haters seem to want to give her a kind of super agency where everything in the world is personally under her control. Is it robbing a team of agency if it emgerges the refs were paid off? Is that too trivial a fact to be worth mentioning.
What’s interesting is that for Hillary bashers only she has agency-Comey has none, the media has none, etc.
1. Pure speculation despite Hillary haters treating it as established fact
2. Besides the point. Refs should not be paid off or otherwise fail to be impartial if the team they make bad calls against should be able to win anyway.
P.S. As we saw in my poll out last week, the long awaited poll results are in, and right now I’m just 11 points down vs. Peter King (GOP-NY-District 2). And the voters don’t even know who I am yet.
There is nothing more important in getting answers to Trump-Russia collusion than a Democratic House in 2019. Please donate to help me in my part of the effort to fight for a Dem House.
Thank you. We must have a Dem House. And so, we will.