FBI REOPENS Investigation into Hillary Clinton Emails

[Final-Fan]

badgenome said:

Final-Fan said:

I don't know about you but I thought the emails got plenty of coverage at the time.

I don't think it's a matter of they didn't get enough coverage. They got shit coverage. She lied, openly and blatantly, about not having any classified emails from four years at State. The media made no note of it. She deleted emails that were under subpoena. The media didn't start digging. It collectively yawned. Then when it came to Trump's first accuser they actually put on their investigative journalism hat to try and disprove the idea that armrests weren't movable back then. Priorities!

This was all right in front of our faces if you knew where to look. The Benghazi story never added up, and the emails known to be missing were all centered around that. No one pursued that. About a month ago someone discovered the reddit smoking gun. That got a little play, but nobody really dug much further after the hearing came to naught. Then the DOJ dropped its charges against Marc Turi and he wasn't exactly shy about telling everyone it was because he would have revealed the crimes of Clinton (and Obama) under oath. That was a one day story for a few outlets, and then they dropped it. Most hilariously, Kim Dotcom was telling THE WHOLE WORLD that he was going to bring down Clinton and precisely how he was going to do it and nobody paid the slightest attention.

This was Watergate x10000000, and the media just derped around because either they had no taste for bringing down their candidate of choice or they are genuinely retarded. Or both. Now they're in shock and trying to make sense of things while I, some random person on a video game forum, can tell you with near certainty that Clinton is finished as a free woman come next week. Journalism is dead.

Final-Fan said:
While there could be some propaganda value to a lopsided poll, the FIRST reason a campaign wants a poll is to know the actual truth, so that they can allocate campaign resources in the best way. If they were trying to create rotten results, they would be shooting themselves in the foot.

Well, if polls are being rigged to help one candidate it's also likely that that candidate would also be made privvy to the "real" numbers. In addition to having internals, of course. That's pretty conspiratorial, I know, but I'm starting to believe in conspiracies.

Political polling at this point is almost voodoo, anyway, especially in crazy times like these. In addition to the well known landline problem, it's basically impossible to account for something like Reagan, Brexit, or Trump.

Debating and analyzing in detail the extent to which shoddy journalism is reflective of media bias (towards one political party, or against Trump specifically) is frankly not a discussion I'm prepared to go into in depth right now, considering how hard it is to separate opinion from fact and to get statistically significant evidence instead of anecdotes. 

Benghazi ... I am honestly bewildered by people who think it has been insufficiently investigated.  They're working on the eighth congressional investigation now.  It's probably gotten closer attention than 9/11 did.  (Fun fact:  according to Wikipedia, when the 9/11 commission requested additional funding, they got 9 of the 11 million they asked for.  W probably did it as a prank.) 

"Watergate x10000000"  Do I even need to say anything about this? 

About the polling:  firstly, I believe it was an internal poll for the campaign, although I could be wrong about that—it is mostly just an educated guess and the facts that I have never heard of "Atlas" and I don't believe they were on the 538 article I linked; and secondly, the "evidence" that polls were being rigged was complete nonsense, as shown by my previous post.