Here's a link to the 296 pages dumped by Judicial Watch this week.

[lapucelle]

Do you see any problems? I don't see any "pay to play" evidence.

This reminds me of the WikiLeaks dump right before the convention. You have to wade through hundreds of pages, and then there's nothing really there. And all the press does is report rumors they heard from other reporters

http://www.judicialwatch.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/08/JW-v-State-Abedin-production-9-00684-2.pdf#page=296&zoom=160,-70,392

[bananakabob]

1. Meh.

Judicial Watch is a partisan right wing organisation and has shown no reason to be taken seriously by rational individuals.

[lapucelle]

3. I don't find them credible, but that isn't stopping the MSM from reporting

the damaging rumors based on extremely tenuous connections that Judicial Watch is floating.

I like to have all the facts available when I phone bank and canvas. I like to be able to say that I read the 296 pages, and there's nothing much there. I found it helpful in providing talking points after the pre-convention DNC document dump.

[LAS14]

2. Exactly!

"And all the press does is report rumors they heard from other reporters"

That's certainly my impression. See my post


http://www.democraticunderground.com/12512358402

[Wilms]

4. Rumors?

Do you have any links demonstrating the press reporting rumors they heard from other reporters?

I've only seen the reports where the reporters are reporting on the actual content of the email.

Like this one: http://www.cnn.com/2016/08/09/politics/hillary-clinton-emails-judicial-watch/

[lapucelle]

7. From your link

"Early this year as the investigation into Clinton's private email server was in full swing, several FBI field offices approached the Justice Department asking to open a case regarding the relationship between the State Department and the Clinton Foundation, according to a law enforcement official."

Yup. Sounds like a rumor to me.

[Wilms]

9. And the email content?

Do you have any comment on that? I called the State Dept. to "offer insight" and they NEVER got back to me.

[lapucelle]

10. What email content?

I don't even understand what your post means. When did you call the State Department?

Sorry, but I don't play this game.

[Wilms]

11. The link I provided quoted content of email.

But never mind that.

[maxrandb]

5. It's one thing for the MSM to become

Stenographers for the RNC, but when you've whored yourself out to an organization like Judicial Watch, or a person like Larry KKKlayman, you've gone beyond the pale.

Judicial Watch is nothing but a 21ST Century equivalent of the Salem Witch Hunts.

Next thing you know the MSM will be checking to see if Hillary weighs more than a goose.

[JaneQPublic]

6. Smoke but no fire.

When the story was first released, the news media jumped on it with both feet, presumably just to provide balance against all the Trump train wrecks.

But it was soon confirmed there was no quid pro quo (e.g., the billionaire requesting ambassador access never received it). So the new story soon devolved into cable news folks just shaking their heads and mumbling, "Hey, Hillary and her emails -- how `bout that!"

Nice try, but there's no there there.

[Demsrule86]

8. I looked at it

Nothing to see...looks like what they call networking to me ...trying to put people together or find jobs for friend...ooooh scary. A big nothing.