Shift tries to focus on shining a spotlight on state and local issues, assuming that that everybody has enough sources for national news. Especially when we have a presidential election less than two weeks away.
Yet, we couldn’t resist posting about the latest news about the FBI taking another look at Hillary Clinton’s unethical use of a private email server, and the national security information that she was sharing with anyone who could hack into said server. An interesting perspective from the Washington Post caught our eye, pointing out that “Hillary Clinton’s campaign could have gone a few different ways with its response to the bombshell news that the FBI is looking into more emails related to its investigation of the democratic nominee. It went with angry.”
That’s right, the Clinton Campaign is angry. Of course, campaign leaders like John Podesta – who has his own email issues – is not mad at Mrs. Clinton for her wanton disregard for national security in her handling of sensitive information, but with the FBI for reminding voters of Mrs. Clinton’s lack of honesty.
In what has to be the definition of chutzpah, the campaign is now demanding that the FBI “offer more details about what exactly is happening with the emails.”
This is laughable, as we wouldn’t have to depend on the FBI for information on the emails had Mrs. Clinton not deleted over 30,000 of them. She could have provided the information, but instead she thought it better to delete information that might shine a light on her activities.
Makes you wonder if Podesta actually asked his candidate if she didn’t keep a backup file of those deleted emails, so they could determine just how much trouble she might be in.
Photo credit: Gage Skidmore
Shift tries to focus on shining a spotlight on state and local issues, assuming that that everybody has enough sources for national news. Especially when we have a presidential election less than two weeks away.
You can put away the hankies and the smelling salts, as everyone who reads this site knows you’ve been pounding away at the whole Clinton e-mail “scandal” (and the Benghazi “scandal”) with the bitter tenacity of a small-time AM radio host on the make. (Compared to purveyors of Clinton “scandals,” Pavlov’s most servile subjects were wildly unpredictable individualists.)
This is laughable, as we wouldn’t have to depend on the FBI for information on the emails had Mrs. Clinton not deleted over 30,000 of them.
You did catch the bit about this latest information being not about any of her e-mails, right? From the linked story in the Washington Post, the e-mails in question “… are actually from an unrelated investigation into disgraced former congressman Anthony Weiner (D-N.Y.), who has separated from his wife, top Clinton aide Huma Abedin.”
Any idea how you missed that point? It’s from the fifth paragraph of the story to which you linked. Did you just stop reading after the second paragraph?
If you’re going to reproach yourself for mentioning a story, you could at least get the details right first.
“You did catch the bit about this latest information being not about any of those e-mails, right?”
We did catch the bit about you rushing to Hilliary’s defense with faux outrage like the obedient Democrat toadie you are.
Shift’s own source material contradicted the claims it made. Instead of criticizing Shift for getting the basic facts wrong, you call me names for getting those basic facts right.
Do let us know if you’ve ever given money to Shift for performance like this.
So, Shift’s own source material caused you to go to DefCon5 and rush to the pathological liar’s (D) defense? For not being a Democrat (D), you sure do walk like a Democrat (D) and quack like a Democrat (D). Maybe you’re just lying to us?
…Shift’s own source material caused you to go to DefCon5 and rush to the pathological liar’s (D) defense?
Yes, I peacefully* noted Shift’s claim flatly contradicted the only source Shift cited. Strangely, you continue to believe attacking me personally has some relevance to Shift’s complete inability to get basic facts right.
Speaking of liars, can we get a clarification from you on whether you gave money to Shift? You recently seemed to say your claim to have done so was not trustworthy.
*I’ll save you the agony of trying to rewind your VCR tape of “WarGames” by telling you that DefCon5 was peace; DefCon1 was full war alert. You’re welcome.
Yes, you urgently* rushed to the pathological lying loser’s (D) defense. Can’t have somebody talkin’ smack about your favorite loser (D)
“*I’ll save you the agony of trying to rewind your VCR tape of “WarGames””
Now you’re citing a sappy 30 year old movie for military facts? What next, citing a cartoon for climate facts? Oh wait, you already did that. Never mind.
Shift got the story wrong, which doesn’t seem to bother you in the least. I noted the obvious point that Shift got the story wrong, and you just won’t stop hurling your witless verbal abuse at me for being correct. Too funny!
Now you’re citing a sappy 30 year old movie for military facts?
And yet, my source was correct. What was the source of your obvious error of military fact?
You backed a scandal-riddled loser (D), then rushed to her defense when it was pointed out that she’s scandal-riddled loser (D), which doesn’t seem to bother you in the least. Because you’re a Democrat who can’t admit it.
… rushed to her defense…
The date at the top of this post is 28th of October, my original comment is currently labeled as “12 days ago,” and this is Veteran’s Day. I’m feeling generous, so I’ll kindly do the math which reveals your definition of “rushed” is “after at least a couple of days have passed.”
Likewise, you keep insisting that merely noting the truth about Hillary Clinton constitutes a defense of her. That strongly implies an attack upon her requires an untruth. Interesting that you’d be so firm on that point.
Meanwhile, you haven’t even mentioned Shift’s original error. Does Shift’s failure to get the most basic facts right really not bother you at all?
So what you’re saying is you troll Shift so hard that you see everything the moment it’s released, yet you waited at least a couple days to post the first anonymous comment, which reveals your definition of “truth” is “whatever lying drivel I want to post at the moment”.
Likewise, you keep insisting that be merely noting the current article is about tens of thousands more emails that Hillary Clinton (D) recklessly mishandled so wantonly, they ended up on the computer of that stalwart of ethics and morality, Anthony Wiener (D), absolves her of responsibility for her previous crimes. That strongly implies you’re rushing to her defense. It’s predictable that you’d be so firm on that inane point
Meanwhile, a reading comprehension error on you part doesn’t constitute any error on Shift’s part. Does your failure to get reality right really not bother you at all? Of course not, you’re a Democrat.
Look, either you can’t do basic math, or you believe waiting a few days means “urgent.” Only you can resolve this conundrum for us.
Likewise, you’ve claimed over and over and over again that I defended someone when all I had done was state the facts. Interesting that you don’t condemn Shift for attacking with falsehoods, distortions, ignorance, or outright lies (Shift has yet to clarify which of those it was) — but you do become enraged and start name-calling when someone introduces real facts. Your behavior tells us far more about yourself than it does about Hillary Clinton or me.
So, did you actually pay good money for the material Shift provides? Or were you blatantly lying when you said you’d given money to Shift?
Look, either you obsessively troll Shift and see everything the moment it’s published and chose not to post the FIRST comment defending the pathological liar for several days or you initially saw the article a few days after it was published and immediately posted the FIRST comment defending the pathological liar. Tell us which one’s the truth. Only you can resolve this conundrum for us.
“So, did you actually pay good money for the material Shift provides? Or were you blatantly lying when you said you’d given money to Shift?”
Coming from someone who refuses to disclose even something as basic as a party affiliation (save for the lame lie, “I’m not a Democrat”), this is priceless. You’re totally comfortable demanding to know what my political contributions are while hiding even what you are. Will you take my word or shall I provide receipts? Your hypocrisy alone qualifies you as a card-carrying Democrat, but we understand why you lie about it. If I was the turd in the punchbowl, I wouldn’t want to admit it, either.
Only you can resolve this conundrum for us.
Sure. I saw it a day or two later, and posted a day or two after that. Looks like both of your claims were dead flat wrong. (In other news, water is wet, and night follows day.)
… refuses to disclose even something as basic as a party affiliation…
I don’t have any party affiliation to disclose. If you’d ever actually asked me for my party affiliation, instead of repeatedly, rudely, and groundlessly proclaiming I was a Democrat, you might have learned this long ago. (Then again, learning isn’t really your thing, now is it?)
Will you take my word or shall I provide receipts?
I took you at your word when you first claimed to have contributed money to Shift. I continued to believe you until you said I had no idea if you’d actually contributed or not. Since my only source was you, your recent statement can only mean you consider yourself to be an unreliable source of information on the topic of your own actions (!), specifically about how you choose to spend your own money. Despite this, I’m still willing to take your word on it.
You still haven’t breathed one word of criticism at Shift for having fed you a blatantly false story, even as you called me names for noticing the falsehood. Do you really have so little dignity, self-worth, and pride that you allow Shift to tell you tall tales without even getting angry at them in return?