The Briefing Room
General Category => National/Breaking News => Topic started by: mystery-ak on September 17, 2017, 08:06:59 pm
-
Clinton 'rejects premise' husband meeting AG Lynch on tarmac critically hurt campaign
Published September 17, 2017
Fox News
Hillary Clinton rejects the idea that a June 2016 meeting between her husband, former President Bill Clinton, and then-Attorney General Loretta Lynch critically damaged her White House bid.
“I just don’t buy that,” Clinton said in a PBS interview aired Friday evening to promote her new book, “What Happened,” about her loss last year to Donald Trump.
As Clinton has in several other, recent interviews promoting the book, she heaped much of the blame on then-FBI Director James Comey.
more
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2017/09/17/clinton-rejects-premise-husband-meeting-ag-lynch-on-tarmac-critically-hurt-campaign.html
-
Do I think that cost her votes?
Well, no, actually.
Most Democrats didn't give a bloody toad fart what Hillary had or hadn't done.
Those who supported her likely did so right through to the end.
I think there were plenty of pee-ohed Berners out there still ticked that she had finagled the nomination, and that might have hurt a little in enthusiasm for GOTV efforts.
Neither side had their most massive turnouts, implying large unhappy factions on both sides, and overall, the other ('third') parties gained support, perhaps out of Republicrat fatigue.
These were ordinary Clinton dirty tricks and cheats, and a meeting between the AG and Bubba would be expected by those who thought she'd make a good POTUS.
-
Well Bill and Chelsea are the only ones she hasn't blamed for her loss, though maybe she just hasn't gotten around to them yet.
But when you consider that the meeting is what caused Lynch to give Comey free rein, it's patently absurd to say it had no effect while at the same time blaming Comey's handling of the investigation for the loss. Bill's odious remora obviously isn't in the same league with him when it comes to spinning these false narratives...
-
Well Bill and Chelsea are the only ones she hasn't blamed for her loss, though maybe she just hasn't gotten around to them yet.
But when you consider that the meeting is what caused Lynch to give Comey free rein, it's patently absurd to say it had no effect while at the same time blaming Comey's handling of the investigation for the loss. Bill's odious remora obviously isn't in the same league with him when it comes to spinning these false narratives...
Meh. It is another Clinton smokescreen. "Comey had free rein" "The investigation was re-opened" and the end result: "They found nothing, twice! "
I think the important part for the Clintons was that she walk, whether it was up the steps to the Inauguration podium or not, but I seriously doubt it had any significant effect on voters. She still won the popular vote, and only lost in the electoral college.
-
Meh. It is another Clinton smokescreen. "Comey had free rein" "The investigation was re-opened" and the end result: "They found nothing, twice! "
I think the important part for the Clintons was that she walk, whether it was up the steps to the Inauguration podium or not, but I seriously doubt it had any significant effect on voters. She still won the popular vote, and only lost in the electoral college.
I wasn't implying that Comey did affect the outcome - there's zero evidence of that. I was only commenting on the absurd inconsistency of her lame excuses...
-
I wasn't implying that Comey did affect the outcome - there's zero evidence of that. I was only commenting on the absurd inconsistency of her lame excuses...
Oh, she's firing wildly in every direction but the right one.