Clinton's emails continue to be a non scandal (except on DU) disappointing republicans

[Liberal_in_LA]

https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/plum-line/wp/2016/03/04/clinton-emails-continue-to-be-non-scandal-disappointing-republicans/
Walker/The Washington Post)

Now let’s be honest. When this story broke, Republicans were desperately hoping that we would learn that some criminal wrongdoing or catastrophic security breach had taken place, so they could then use that against Clinton in her run for the White House. But that turns out not to be the case. So the next best thing from their perspective is that there’s some vaguely-defined “scandal” that the public doesn’t really understand, but that voters will hold against her if you just repeat the words “Clinton email scandal” often enough.

They may have gotten that. I’ve certainly seen plenty of voters quoted in press accounts saying some version of, “I don’t trust Clinton, ’cause you know, that email thing.” I’m sure 99 percent of them couldn’t tell you what they think Clinton actually did that’s so awful, but they know that there was something about emails, and it was, like, a scandal, right?

In recent weeks, I’ve had a couple of liberal friends and relatives ask me, with something approaching panic, “I just heard that Clinton is about to be indicted. Is that true?!?” The answer is no, but they heard that because it’s something conservatives say constantly. Tune to to talk radio or surf through conservative web sites, and before long you’ll hear someone say that the Clinton indictment is coming any day now. Donald Trump, with his characteristically tenuous relationship to reality, frequently says that she’s about to be indicted or that she won’t be permitted to run for president because she’ll be on trial. It hasn’t happened and it won’t happen, but that isn’t going to stop them from saying it.


Finally, there’s a phrase you should watch out for when you see this issue discussed: “Drip, drip, drip.” Sometimes it’ll be a Republican partisan using it, but more often it will be some pundit explaining why the issue is important. What “drip, drip drip” means is that despite the fact that there was no crime and no security breach, the media will keep discussing the story as the investigations continue, and that will cause political difficulty for Clinton. “Drip, drip, drip” is this controversy’s version of, “it’s out there,” meaning, “there isn’t anything scandalous about the substance of this matter, but here’s how we’ll justify talking about it as though it actually were something scandalous.”

I don’t say that to justify Clinton’s original decision to set up the private server. She shouldn’t have done that, not only because it was against department policy, but also because she should have been extra careful, knowing her history, to make sure she minded her Ps and Qs on everything like this. She should have known that once she started running for president there were going to be FOIA requests and lawsuits and investigations of everything she did as Secretary of State. So yes, that was an error in judgment. But it wasn’t a crime — and it appears that no bad consequences for the country came of it — so we shouldn’t treat it like it was.

[joeybee12]

1. And the guy they gave immunity to showed the FBI nothing was ever hacked...

Nothing to see. Yet this is a perfect example of how to run a smear campaign, the Repukes and Fox Noise are experts.

[Press Virginia]

7. Why did he need immunity

[joeybee12]

10. Ridiculous..nt

[Press Virginia]

12. I can see how the question would cause a problem

with what you believe.

The man didn't get immunity from prosecution to discuss the server logs

[former9thward]

8. Oh, they have briefed you on his testimony?

How special...

[joeybee12]

9. You're proving the OP's point...nt

[former9thward]

11. The FBI is investigating this.

Not the "right wing".

[ghostsinthemachine]

2. This goes to all of my republican friends

it is all they talk about and they know NOTHING at all about it. "Hillary needs to go to jail"....

Stupid shit. If you don't like Hillary there is plenty of actual things to not like her for.

[scscholar]

3. You claim she shouldn't have done that

Why? So many Republicans did just that.

[haikugal]

4. You don't know that.

We'll know soon enough.

[Kingofalldems]

5. This is just like the Whitewater 'scandal'. There was no scandal.

All the right wing radio screamers claimed Bill Clinton was about to be indicted, and this continued for years.

Same old game plan.

[lindysalsagal]

6. MSNBC is trying hard to push it in the am

But everyone is yawning

[calguy]

13. Sanders supporters eat this shit up

It's about the only hope the BSers have left, so they keep holding on, trying to bite into a nothing burger and wondering there's nothing there.

[Zambero]

15. No there there

Bernie's a focused and sensible guy who understands how to separate wheat from chaff. I commend him for a campaign that sticks to important issues and NOT the politics of personal destruction such as the most recent GOP freak show last night. The new-found leftie echo chamber, modeled after the long-standing one on the right, might wish to follow suit.

[99th_Monkey]

14. Your probably correct; i. e. it won't become a "scandal" until this happens, during the GE

When the M$M finally 'gets around' to covering it, because they can't cover-up an indictment, once it occurs...

[840high]

17. .+10

[pandr32]

16. This! Nailed it!