brooklyndweller

Too late. It's already out there in the ether. Doesn't matter if there are 150 agents or 2. The lie has already traveled half way around the world.

(Unfortunately, partially spread by some on the Left).

39m
alliebean

exspectator:
Fewer than 50 still sounds like a significant number, assuming "fewer than 50" is correct and doesn't mean 1 or 2. I hope the FBI completes is investigation before the Democratic convention...
It's not. Little pieces are doled out depending on who is where, who has things going on, etc. Also, they need people to read through all those emails. The FBI isn't going to trust State to do it for investigative purposes. When I had my clearance done, I personally know of 12 agents who worked on it not including the polygrapher they flew from Seattle to DC for my polygraph. I'm a nobody.

37m
reggid

Oh, for fuck's sake. How many fucking times, and how many fucking ways, is this complete, utter nonsense going to be recycled?

The use of a private email server for government business was perfectly legal and perfectly common when Clinton used it. The law did not change until AFTER she left office.
No classified information was sent via private email.
Only a tiny handful of emails were RETROACTIVELY "classified" by overzealous, partisan hacks looking to create a controversy (i.e., "classifying" references to a publicly published news article).
All the rest is media argle-bargle.
3 replies
27m
ncsteve

Ah yes, two facts sourced to a single unnamed Republican source who is totally not named "Issa" that are essential to the accusatory tone of the article fixed by a "correction" without any attempt to assess whether the entire story's point has been seriously undermined or even whether it's wise to let themselves get played for fools time and time again. Yep, must be reading the New York Times.

Wait, what?

1 reply
21m
cabchi

I've been a subscriber to thge Post for decades, and I have two questions for them:

(1) Who was the Congressional source "briefed" by Comey who gave them the 147 number. Could it have been (Gasp!) a Republican Congressman or Senator who might just have a political axe to grind here? Come on, Post, out with it.

(2) Since the article was splashed all over page 1 and was written to seem that an indictment was at hand, will the retraction occupy the same page 1 space as the original (non) story?