Quote (ThatAlex @ Jun 15 2016 05:33pm)
I'm really confused why you're trying so hard to argue this point. She's currently under a criminal investigation by the FBI....a federal circuit judge involved in the case even said so in a court filing. I think she's unlikely to face an indictment, but it's still a criminal investigation.
The FBI is either going to recommend and indictment or they will not, and that's based on whether they find any criminal wrongdoing. You're admitting that there is an investigation taking place and that they are searching for any wrongdoing, but you aren't putting all the pieces together or listening to what the judges involved in the case are saying.
Because you're using words incorrectly, it really is that simple. The judge didn't say that either, just like Josh Earnest didn't say what you said he did.
You seem to believe that, because Judge Sullivan referenced an ongoing criminal investigation, it's fair to characterize Clinton as the subject of said investigation. It isn't. Unless/until the FBI confirms Clinton is the subject, it's incorrect to assert she's "under criminal investigation." That's why Jeb Bush et al. kept getting tagged when they spent the last year spreading that lie; the FBI could have come forward at any time (including today) and said Jake Sullivan is the subject (or someone else) and that would have been consistent with the filing, and their investigation.
Quote (EA7 @ Jun 17 2016 07:21pm)
Clinton thread: 18 pages
Trump thread: 400+ pages
I feel bad for you guys come general election.
I cracked up at this, as if it's indicative of how many votes either can expect to win anywhere on Election Day. You wanna venture a guess how many contact attempts (phone), canvasses (phone/door), and shifts Clinton registered yesterday in VA or NC or FL vs. what Trump (see: the RNC) managed?