Message auto-removed

Message auto-removed

Message auto-removed

New national poll (sept. 24-27): Clinton 44%, Sanders 23%, Biden 19%.

Sept. 24-27

http://morningconsult.com/2015/09/poll-biden-broadly-favorable-but-clinton-still-leads/

Requesting thread edit (On Hillary and Huma Amedin)

A thread titled "NYT: Hillary Clinton Personally Signed Off on Job Change for Huma Abedin" was posted 5 days ago. I request that the good and respectable DUer portlander23 delete or edit the thread, since the claim made therein has been debunked.

hhttp://correctrecord.org/when-it-comes-to-right-wing-anti-clinton-leaks-some-in-the-media-report-first-ask-questions-later-if-at-all/

Please change the title or issue an update reflecting the fact that the NYT once again made stuff up about Clinton.

Hurry! There is an article in the Washington Post about a non-email issue

The Washington Post is talking about something Hillary said, other than the email drama. Its about the anti-feminist Chinese leader. Hurry and go read it before its replaced with old email gossip repackaged as breaking news. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/worldviews/wp/2015/09/28/hillary-clinton-called-xis-speech-shameless-and-the-web-went-wild/

Hillary leads Sanders by 30% in North Carolina

See page 4.

http://www.elon.edu/docs/e-web/elonpoll/092415_ElonPollExecSumm.pdf

Fivethirtyeight: Bobby Jindal could win Iowa

From the awesome political website fivethirtyeight, we get this gem today:

"I’m not sure Jindal benefits from Scott Walker’s recent exit from the Republican race, exactly, but I do think the Louisiana governor is a sleeper pick to win the Iowa caucuses."

http://fivethirtyeight.com/datalab/bobby-jindal-could-still-win-iowa/

Chris Cilliza blocks media critic on Twitter

Chris Cilliza, whose video segment in the Washington Post was cancelled a few years ago for calling Hillary Clinton a bitch (along with Dana Milbank), has blocked journalism professor and media critic Jay Rosen on Twitter. Rosen has criticized Cilliza's flawed coverage of the Clinton emails.

https://twitter.com/EricBoehlert/status/647499472017207296

Ron Fournier's latest piece full of "flatly false" allegations and "the airiest kind of speculation"

By Kevin Drum, Mother Jones

Ho hum. It was pretty obvious what the Fournier column was about, since he's been obsessed about Hillary's email server for months, but I went ahead and clicked anyway. I was pretty taken aback. He made three points at the top of the column:

1. "The State Department confirmed that Clinton turned over her email only after Congress discovered that she had exclusively used a private email system."
Nope. Fournier is referring to last night's Washington Post story, which says the State Department discovered it didn't know where Clinton's emails were. (Or Condi Rice's. Or Colin Powell's. Or Madeleine Albright's. Or much of anyone else's apparently.) Clinton turned over her emails when State asked for them.

2. "A federal court has helped uncover more emails related to the Benghazi raid that were withheld from congressional investigators. Clinton has insisted she turned over all her work-related email and complied with congressional subpoenas. Again, she hasn’t been telling the truth."
This is flatly false. The linked Politico story says nothing about Clinton not turning over all her work emails. It says only that the State Department has claimed executive privilege for a few documents—something with no relation at all to Hillary Clinton. From Politico: "The FOIA lawsuits provide a vehicle to force the agency to identify those emails, although the substance of the messages is not disclosed."

3. "The FBI has recovered personal and work-related e-mails from her private server....The FBI has moved beyond whether U.S. secrets were involved to how and why. In the language of law enforcement, the FBI is investigating her motive."
I guess this isn't flatly false, but "how and why" were words used by Bloomberg's reporter in the linked story. There didn't seem to be any special significance attached to them, and it's the airiest kind of speculation to say this means the FBI is investigating Clinton's motive. They've consistently said that she's not the subject of a criminal investigation. Why would they be investigating motive if they're not investigating any underlying crime?

http://m.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2015/09/if-you-accuse-hillary-clinton-lying-you-should-be-careful-truth-yourself